Gursahai Saigal v. CIT

48 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1963#952 most cited

What is Gursahai Saigal v. CIT authority for?

The rule of strict construction applies to a taxing provision that creates a charge for tax, but machinery provisions for making assessments are interpreted liberally. This distinction ensures that while the tax burden is clearly established, procedural aspects are construed to facilitate tax collection.

112

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gursahai Saigal v. CIT · 48 ITR 1 · SC 1963 · interpretation of taxing statutes · charging provision · machinery provision · strict construction · liberal interpretation · assessment procedure · income tax law

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 234CSection 115BBESection 133ASection 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 234e(1)section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 200a(1)(c)section 245csection 254(2)section 200a(1)settlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)

Judgments citing Gursahai Saigal v. CIT

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 35/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/ALLD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for…

Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 337/ALLD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of construction applies only to a taxing provision (which creates a charge for the tax) but, not to the machinery provision for making the assessment. They also relied on the [2004] 271 ITR 401 (SC) for…

Pranati Buildcon, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT Cen Cir, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hanedra Gargieya, Adv. (V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR a
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

…terpreted liberally. The above criteria of interpretation of the 'Statute' is supported by several judicial precedents Some land mark judicial precedents are as under (1) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO 1994 taxmann.com 370 (SC). (ii) Gurshai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC). (ii) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC) (iv) CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC) 9 Pranati Buildcon, Kota. under: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) held as "It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is cr…

Hiralal Vijawat, Bhawanimandi vs. ACIT / DCIT Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 614/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (VC)For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, SR. DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69C

…ed liberally. The above criteria of interpretation of the 'Statute' is supported by several judicial precedents. Some land mark judicial precedents are as under (i) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO 1994 taxmann.com 370 (SC). (ii) Gurshai Saigal v. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC). (iii) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC). (iv) CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) held as under:- "It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-010586-010589 - 2025Supreme Court08 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 44B

…ion makes that end unattainable. (See Whitney v. IRC [1926 AC 37 : 10 Tax Cas 88 : 95 LJKB 165 : 134 LT 98 (HL)] , AC at p. 52 referred to in CIT v. S. Teja Singh [AIR 1959 SC 352 : (1959) 35 ITR 408] and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [AIR 1963 SC 1062 : (1963) 48 ITR 1] .) 16. The courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the SLP (C) Nos. 20569-72/2023 and SLP(C) No. 25798/2024 Page 46 of 51 legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v. Duncombe [(1886) 11 AC 627 : 55 LJPC 69 : 55 LT 446 (PC…

Parshavnath Associates, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1358/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

…interpreted liberally. The above criteria of Interpretation of the 'Statute' is supported by several judicial precedents. Some land mark judicial precedents are as under, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO 1994 taxmann.com 370 (SC). (i) Gurshai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC). ()India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC). (iv) CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) held as under: "It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proce…

Parshwanath Buildestate Private Limited, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1357/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

…interpreted liberally. The above criteria of Interpretation of the 'Statute' is supported by several judicial precedents. Some land mark judicial precedents are as under, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO 1994 taxmann.com 370 (SC). (i) Gurshai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC). ()India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC). (iv) CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) held as under: "It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proce…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Companies Co-Op. Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 4233/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 23(1)(a)

…d "according to its intent, though not according to its words". It has even been said that "if the provision is so wanting in clarity that no meaning is reasonably clear, the courts will be unable to regard it as of any effect - Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC); Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64 ; Bethlehem Hospital In re [1875] L.R. 19 Eq 457; A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala 1957 SCR 837 ; IRC v. Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd. [1948] 1 All ER 616 ; CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC); CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm, Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216 ; CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd

ITA/52/2024HC Delhi03 Apr 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

…: (2006) 13 Scale 27] this Court noticed the decisions of this Court in Gursahai Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2024 & connected matters Page 98 of 179 Saigal v. CIT [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] and Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs [(2006) 12 SCC 583 : (2006) 202 ELT 561] . ‘17. In Gursahai Saigal [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] the question which fell for consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. The Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act is not machin…

Kk Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 510/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Paven Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…09 to 2010-11) K.K. Leisure Tourism International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT which it is to be therefore interpreted, understood and applied, for which reference be made to decisions in L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO[1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC); Gursahai Saigal v.CIT[1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC); Calcutta Knitwears (supra), to cite some.The third requirement is that the jurisdictional fact of the material having a bearing on the determination of the total income of the other person must be satisfied for each of the years for which notice u/s. 153A is being issued, initiating thus proceedings there- under, i.e., the jurisdiction is to b…

Kk Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 509/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Paven Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…09 to 2010-11) K.K. Leisure Tourism International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT which it is to be therefore interpreted, understood and applied, for which reference be made to decisions in L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO[1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC); Gursahai Saigal v.CIT[1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC); Calcutta Knitwears (supra), to cite some.The third requirement is that the jurisdictional fact of the material having a bearing on the determination of the total income of the other person must be satisfied for each of the years for which notice u/s. 153A is being issued, initiating thus proceedings there- under, i.e., the jurisdiction is to b…

Kk Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd, Kannur vs. The DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 508/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Paven Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…09 to 2010-11) K.K. Leisure Tourism International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT which it is to be therefore interpreted, understood and applied, for which reference be made to decisions in L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO[1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC); Gursahai Saigal v.CIT[1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC); Calcutta Knitwears (supra), to cite some.The third requirement is that the jurisdictional fact of the material having a bearing on the determination of the total income of the other person must be satisfied for each of the years for which notice u/s. 153A is being issued, initiating thus proceedings there- under, i.e., the jurisdiction is to b…

Income Tax Officer vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia

C.A. No.-000911-000911 - 2022Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

…decisions of this CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2022 Page 58 of 67 Court in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] and Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs [(2006) 12 SCC 583]. ‘17. In Gursahai Saigal [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] the question which fell for consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. The Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act is not machinery provision. It is a part of the charging provision. 18. By giving a plain meaning to the Schedule appended to…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Udiyankulangara Branch, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 835/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM ITA No. 797/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 802/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 803/COCH/2022 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 808/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 809/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Unnikula…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Omalloor Branch, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 834/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM ITA No. 797/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 802/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 803/COCH/2022 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 808/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 809/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Unnikula…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Omalloor Branch, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 833/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM ITA No. 797/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 802/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 803/COCH/2022 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 808/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 809/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Unnikula…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 832/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM ITA No. 797/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 802/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 803/COCH/2022 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 808/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 809/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Unnikula…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 831/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM ITA No. 797/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 802/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 803/COCH/2022 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 808/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 809/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Unnikula…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 830/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM ITA No. 797/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 802/COCH/2022 Onchiyam Branch 2013-2014 Q4 ITA No. 803/COCH/2022 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q2 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Omasseri Branch 2013-2014 Q4 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 808/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q2 ITA No. 809/COCH/2022 Ottapalam Branch 2013-2014 Q3 Unnikula…