How many judgments cite Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh?

57 judgments on BharatTax cite Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (6 SCC 786), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 249(3), Section 253(5), Section 143(1).

Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh

6 SCC 786Supreme Court of India2010#2015 most cited

What is Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh authority for?

Delay in filing appeals should be condoned if it is not deliberate or mala fide, as courts must adopt a pragmatic approach to advance substantial justice and allow matters to be contested on merits rather than dismissing them on technicalities.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Improvement Trust Ludhiana v Ujagar Singh · condonation of delay · section 253(5) · section 249(3) · substantial justice · pragmatic approach · non-deliberate delay · mala fide intention · technicalities versus merits · limitation for appeals · sufficient cause · dismissing meritorious matters

Also reported as

173 Taxmann.com 261

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 249(3)Section 253(5)Section 143(1)Section 144 Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)bona fide mistake section 249(3)section 253(3)section 249 section 271f section 249(2)section 253 delay in filing appeal section 24 condonation of delay section 148a

Judgments citing Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2180/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

…reciate the settled judicial position laid down in: N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123), where it was held that "length of delay is not material, what matters is the sufficiency of cause." Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh ((2010) 6 SCC 786), which held that delay due to ignorance or bona fide mistake must be condoned in the interest of justice. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. ((2011) 334 ITR 269 (Cal)), where it was observed that the department should adopt a liberal view where there is no mala fide intention or tax evasion. 6. That the Ld. CIT(…

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2179/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member | ITA No: 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 | | Assessment Year: 2015-16 | | Baraiya Galaji Kalaji 93 Arjun Vas, Nana Chiloda, B.O. Ahmedabad Gandhinagar-382330 Gujarat, India PAN: BEMPB9663R (Appellant) | Vs | The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar Gandhingar (Respondent) | Assessee Represented: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 03-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

S 778 R PATTANAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY ,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD 2, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3374/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V. Sreeraman, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 68

…lanation. It was held that if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or is not intended as a dilatory tactic, the Court should ordinarily condone the delay so as to advance substantial justice. 10. Again, in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (6 SCC 786), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach must guide the adjudication of condonation applications, particularly when refusal to condone would result in foreclosing a party’s right to have the matter examined on merits. 11. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar…

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

ITA 593/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Anil Turakhia, ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025 (AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15) 19 Rani Sati Colony, Y.N. Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement बनाम / Vs. ITO 5(1) Indore (Revenue/Respondent) PAN:ABTPT7760N Shri Ashish Goyal, AR Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR 16.02.2026 19.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER Per Bench: The captioned four (4) appeals are filed by assessee, the details are as under: ITA No.…

Principal Commissioner Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata vs. Alert Consultants and Credit Private Limited

ITAT/191/2025HC Calcutta19 Jan 2026

Bench: This Court, As Outlined In Circular No. 9/2024 Dated 17Th September 2024.

Section 251

…l by Revenue, when the applicant was able to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for the delay, and that Revenue had nothing to gain by filing appeal in a delayed way. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust vs. 3 Ujagar Singh & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 786 (SC) had adjudicated that unless mala fide intention exists in the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. The applicant would not have gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the application within the period of limitation? (c) Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax…

HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAUPADA, TEEN HAATH NAKA, THANE (W)

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6357/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Hemchand Chintaman Patil 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, Bhayander (East), Thane Maharashtra [PAN: AMAPP3180E] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Quereshi Mansion, 2nd Floor, Gokhale Road, …………. Respondent Naupada, Teen Haath Naka, Thane (West), Thane – 400602, Maharashtra. Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Brijesh Vyas For the Respondent/Department : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari Date Conclusion of hearing : 08.12.2025 Pronouncement of order : 12.12.…

AMBAR RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1569/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 249Section 69C

…hould not defeat adjudication on merits. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Court held that the primary consideration is whether the explanation for delay is bona fide. Similarly, in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786, the Supreme Court reiterated that denial of condonation should be an exception rather than a rule, especially where refusal leads to denial of justice. Further, several ITAT decisions have consistently held that where the assessee has furnished reasons for delay, the CIT(Appeals) must examine the same and pass a reasoned order; and if not satisfie…

AAREEV FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs. CIT(E), AHEMDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1502/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parth Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 253(5)

…on’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held that length of delay is not material and that acceptability of the explanation is the only relevant criterion. Further, in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786, it was reiterated that when there is no allegation of mala fides or dilatory tactics, courts must adopt a pragmatic and liberal view toward condonation. 5. In the present case, we are of the considered view that the assessee has demonstrated that the failure to file the appeal in time occurred solely due to non-communication of the impugned order…

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 194C

…contend that the expression “sufficient cause” deserves a liberal interpretation: 1. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) 2. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 3. Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786 He thus prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits. 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee had been non-compliant throughout the reassessment proceedings despite multiple statutory notices issued under sections 148, 142…

SHYAM GREENFIELD DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1164/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

…onal and therefore it is a fit case where the Hon'ble Tribunal should condone the delay for rendering substantive justice. In this regard, reference is drawn to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 786 (SC) wherein it has been held that unless mala fide intention exists in the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities. Apart from the above, the applicant would not have…

FESTINO VINCOM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Festino Vincom Limited Income Tax Officer Cabin 11, Room No. 2, 2Nd Floor, Office Of Income Tax Shyam Chambers, 7/1A Grant Officer, Ward 2(2), Kolkata, Vs. Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal,700069 West Bengal,700012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcf3822F Assessee By : Shri B.K. Sahoo, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM FESTINO VINCOM LIMITED INCOME TAX OFFICER Cabin 11, Room No. 2, 2nd floor, OFFICE OF INCOME TAX Shyam Chambers, 7/1A Grant OFFICER, WARD 2(2), Kolkata, Vs. Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal,700069 West Bengal,700012 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCF3822F Assessee by : Shri B.K. Sahoo, AR Revenue by : Shri Raja Sengupta, DR Date of hearing: 07.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Ap…

SANGEET GUPTA,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Sangeeta Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhati, Itama, Maihar, Satna Ward-1, Satna Pan:Bdipg5378M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law, As Has Been Initiated By Jao Instead Of Faceless. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Case, The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law On Account Of Not Giving Sufficient Time Of 30 Days To Assessee To Reply The Notice Under Section 148A(B). 3. On The Fact & Circumstance Of The Case, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal In Liming Without Condoning The Delay Even When There Exist Reason & Sufficient Cause Behind The Delay So Caused Was Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. 4. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of 21,23,97,680/- Credited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee In Cash Form Without Considering The Fact That Assessee Duly Uploaded The Audit Report On E-Portal, Confirming The Source Of Cash. Further Id. Cit (A) Also Erred In Not Considering The Reply Filed In The Appeal Proceeding, As Well As In The Assessment Proceeding By Assessee, To Dismiss The Appeal Being Filed Beyond Allowable Time Having Sufficient Cause.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

…erred in confirming the addition of 1,23,97,680/-, as made by AO by rejecting the appeal on technicalities instead of adjudicating the appeal of assessee on merits as has been held by Supreme Court in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh and Ors(2010) 6 SCC 786 and CIT vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corp (2011) 34 ITR 269 SC. 6. On the fact and circumstance of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has earned by not considering the fact that the AO has made addition of 21,23,97,680/-merely on the basis of credit entry in the form of deposit of cash, but totally ignoring the debit entries being remi…

SALIGRAMA RAJENDRA PRASAD RASHMI,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2414/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

…n Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) laid down that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Similarly, in Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786, it was held that courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and advance substantial justice, provided no mala-fide or deliberate delay is shown. 16.1 Applying the above principles, in the present case, we find that the assessee acted on professional advice that the rectification petition would take care of the issue. She was a non-resident working…

AMAR VITHALDAS GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3107/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Fenil Bhat

Section 2(22)(e)

…of a non-deliberate vested right in injustice being done on account of a non vested right in injustice being done on account of a non delay. Likewise, in Improvement Trust, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh & Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh & Ors. [(2010) 6 SCC 786], the Supreme Court observed that a [(2010) 6 SCC 786], the Supreme Court observed that a [(2010) 6 SCC 786], the Supreme Court observed that a pedantic approach should not result in meritorious matters being pedantic approach should not result in meritorious matters being pedantic approach should not result in meritorious matters being dismissed a…

PEARL PARK BEACH RESORTS,PORT BLAIR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(4),, PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1857/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

…it is a fit case where the Hon'ble Tribunal should condone the delay for rendering substantive justice…..” 1.2. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 786 (SC) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC). Considering the I.T.A. No.: 1857/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pearl Park Beach Resorts. application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from fili…

SAMPAT MAL PARAKH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2238/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…96 (85) ELT\n4\nITA No.2238/KOL/2024\n209 (SC)&Jaya Engineering Works Ltd. -vs.- GOI 1997 (90) ELT 19\n(SC).\n6.2 In this regard, reference is also drawn to the decision of Hon'ble\nApex Court in the case of Improvement Trust -vs.- Ujagar Singh &\nOrs. (2010) 6 SCC 786 (SC) wherein it has been held that unless\nmalafide intention exists in the conduct of the party, generally as a\nnormal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt\nshould always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits\nrather than to throw it on such technicalities. Apart from the above,\nthe appellant would not h…

SAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.441 & 442/RJT/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The ITO, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat PAN : ACDPP2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.AR राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hear…

SHAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

SRI SNEHASISH BHAUMIK,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA\n\nBEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM\n\nITA No.303/KOL/2024\n(Assessment Year:2014-15)\n\nSri Snehasish Bhaumik\nA-3/2, Labony Estate, Salt Lake,\nKolkata, West Bengal, 700064\nVs.\nPCIT-17\nUttarapan Complex, Maniktala\nCivic Centre, Block-DFS-4,\nKolkata, West Bengal, 700054\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ADYPB8516H\n\nAssessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury &\nShri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars\nRevenue by : Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR\n\nDate of hearing: 08.05.2025\nDate of pronouncement : 22.05.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPer Rajesh…

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JM IT(SS)A Nos. 1, 2 to 7/GTY/2024 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 to 2017-18) ACIT, Circle-3, Guwahati Mayurply Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Christian N.H. 2(old Delhi Road), P.O. Basti, G.S. Road, Room Belumiki, Sheoraphully, Vs. No.705, 7th Floor, Hooghly-712223, West Bengal Guwahati-781005, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT1308G Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Kaushik Roy, DR Date of hearing: 07.03.2025 Date of…

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3