In\nSedco Forex International Drilling Inc. v. CIT

279 ITR 310Supreme Court of India2005#909 most cited
116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 145B(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160section 23(2)

Judgments citing In\nSedco Forex International Drilling Inc. v. CIT

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3896/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…effect from 01.04.2022 and will accordingly applied in relation to the A.Y. 2022-23 and subsequent years. The Hon'ble High Court while referring and relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. Vs. CIT [2005] 149 Taxmann 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is “for the removal of doubts…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3895/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Dcit 3(3)1 Vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Room No. 522, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Limited K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji 400 020. Centre Mumbai, Colaba S.O, Pan: Aaxcs6219B Mumbai – 400 005. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…effect from 01.04.2022 and will accordingly applied in relation to the A.Y. 2022-23 and subsequent years. The Hon’ble High Court while referring and relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. Vs. CIT [2005] 149 Taxmann 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is “for the removal of doubts” cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changed the law as it earlier stood. The Hon'ble High Court concluded in para 8 as under: “8. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the amendment of Section 14A…

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…on the decisions in the following cases, the Revenue relies on the decision in Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure(India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Del) (copy on record), rendered relying on the decision in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CIT [2005] 279 ITR 310 (SC): i. CIT vs. Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd. TCA No., 267 of 2020 (Mad) Mentions that SLP in the case of Brakes India was dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court. Diadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, Circle - 2 ii. Brakes India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, ITA 1464 of 2019, (Mad) iii. CIT &Anr. vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 423 (Bom) iv. Pr. CIT vs. Godre…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ake effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below. ‘9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in u…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ake effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below. ‘9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in u…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ake effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below. ‘9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in u…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ake effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below. ‘9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in u…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ake effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below. ‘9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in u…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ake effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below. ‘9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in u…

M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 774/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 14ASection 234ASection 250

…ke effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: '9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in u…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA/405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…ain provision came into force. However, if the clarificatory explanation brings about a change in law, it cannot be presumed that it would have a retrospective effect. [See Sedco Forex International Drill Inc v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Dehradun (2005) 279 ITR 310 (SC)] (iv) Even where an amendment to the law is described as clarificatory, it is not always given a retrospective effect if it results in a substantial amendment. Explanations 6 and 7 appended to Section 9(1)(i) are thus not merely declaratory or clarificatory but introduce a new set of exemptions for small taxpayers and, therefore, are l…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA-405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…ain provision came into force. However, if the clarificatory explanation brings about a change in law, it cannot be presumed that it would have a retrospective effect. [See Sedco Forex International Drill Inc v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Dehradun (2005) 279 ITR 310 (SC)] (iv) Even where an amendment to the law is described as clarificatory, it is not always given a retrospective effect if it results in a substantial amendment. Explanations 6 and 7 appended to Section 9(1)(i) are thus not merely declaratory or clarificatory but introduce a new set of exemptions for small taxpayers and, therefore, are l…

Krishna Hiren Gujarati, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 3(2)(4), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Krishna Hiren Gujarati, I.T.O., C-24, Krishna Park Society, Opp. Ward-3(2)(4), Vs. Bhagat Nagar, Ved Gurukul Road, Surat. Surat-4 (Gujarat) Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

…the ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the following case laws: (11) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs State of Kerela (1966) 60 ITR 262 (SC) (12) CIT Vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) (13) Sedco Forex International Drill Ltd. Vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 310 (SC) (14) Avani Exports Vs CIT (2012) 23 taxmann.com 62 (Guj) (15) CIT Vs S.A. Wahab (1990) 48 Taxman 362 (Ker) (16) Samir Shantilal Mehta Vs ACIT ITA No. 42/Srt/2022 (Surat Trib) (17) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor Vs ITO ITA No. 245/Srt/2021 (Surat Trib) (18) JItendra Nemichand Gupta Vs ITO ITA No. 211/Srt/2021 (Surat Trib) (19) DCIT Vs Punjab retai…

Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 246/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.246/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, No.237, Vikram Nagar Society, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Trikam Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aimpb4673N (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT (SMC) BENCH BEFORE SHRI DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.246/SRT/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Vs. The ITO, No.237, Vikram Nagar Society, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Trikam Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIMPB4673N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Chatali Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR 23/08/2023 Date of Hearing 30/10/2023 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining…

Puspak Steel Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 852/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ake effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: '9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in up…

M/S Wevin Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 367/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 201Section 250Section 254

…ke effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years." (emphasis supplied) 6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT [2005] 149 Taxman 352/279 ITR 310 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: 9. The High Court did not refer to the 1999 Explanation in uph…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3674/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 3424/Mum/2014 (A.Y.2009-10) Vodafone Idea Limited (formerly known as Idea Cellular Limited) 10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 PAN: AAACB2199P ....... Appellant Vs. DCIT Cirl. 3(2), R. No. 608, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent & 2. ITA No. 3674/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) DCIT Cirl. 3(2), R. No. 608, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Circle 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 3424/Mum/2014 (A.Y.2009-10) Vodafone Idea Limited (formerly known as Idea Cellular Limited) 10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 PAN: AAACB2199P ....... Appellant Vs. DCIT Cirl. 3(2), R. No. 608, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent & 2. ITA No. 3674/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) DCIT Cirl. 3(2), R. No. 608, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..…

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath
Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…P a g e | 1 Accenture Solutions Private Limited Vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Accenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘ASOL’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACH3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Nishant Thak…

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. PAN No. AABPT 1270 G Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 31/03/2023 Date of pronouncement 15/06/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Na…