How many judgments cite Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.?

118 judgments on BharatTax cite Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (104 ITD 149), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(1), Section 144, Section 80P(2)(d), Section 154, Section 5 of Limitation Act, Section 80P.

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.

104 ITD 149Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#896 most cited

What is Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. authority for?

A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.

118

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jt. CIT v. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. · 104 ITD 149 · Section 5 Limitation Act · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · assessee negligence · inaction · misplaced order · Section 249 · Section 253

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 144 Section 80P(2)(d)Section 154 Section 5 of Limitation Act Section 80P Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 80P(2)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 248 section 80p(2)(c)section 249(3)section 253(3)delay in filing appeal reasoned order section 249 mli section 80p(2)assessee in default section 80p condonation of delay

Judgments citing Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1389/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ent in support of the delay in filing the Cross objection by 880 days. In our considered view, in the instant facts, the Department has not brought on record any cogent reason for delay in filing of appeal. In the case of Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd.[2007] 104 ITD 149 (Chennai) (TM), the ITAT held that where assessee justified delay of 310 days in filing appeal before Tribunal by stating that Commissioner (Appeals)’s order was misplaced and forgotten and when same was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing of appeal before Tribunal could not be…

Texmat Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

ITA 1798/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…by the assessee in support of its contention. In our considered view, in the instant facts, the assessee has acted negligently and has not brought on record any cogent reason for delay in filing of appeal. In the case of Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd.[2007] 104 ITD 149 (Chennai) (TM), the ITAT held that where assessee justified delay of 310 days in filing appeal before Tribunal by stating that Commissioner (Appeals)’s order was misplaced and forgotten and when same was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing of appeal before Tribunal could not be…

Rajendra Venkat Reddy, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Which Is Evident From Para 5 Of His Order, Wherein A Total Of Eight Opportunities Were Provided To The Assessee But There Was Not A Single Appearance On Any Of The Given Date By The Assessee. The Ld. A.R Also Could

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 5

…servant or a litigant that they would keep the files unmoved or unprocessed for months together on the table. 7. We further find that in a Third Member decision of Co-ordinate Bench Chennai in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as follows: 4 Rajendra V. Reddy A.Y. 2014-15 “A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a…

Ashok Kumar Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5515/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

…1 Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Kumar Singh, Vs Income-tax Officer, R-7, Raj Kunj, Raj Nagar, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. PAN- ARSPS0531M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash,Sr. DR Date of hearing 11.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 19.05.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 26.03.2019, pertaining to the assessment y…

M/S. Vth Source Components Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2620/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Sudheendranath, ARFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…ht sufficient cause for delay. The CIT(A) thereafter observed that there was a difference between marginal delay and inordinate delay and made reference to a Third Member decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Jt.CIT vs Tractors & Farms Equipments Ltd (2007) 104 ITD 149 and held that ‘sufficient cause’ within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a case which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the ITA No.2620 /Bang/2019 Page 6 of 14 provisions. The CIT(A) went on rely on other judicial pronouncements in support of his decision not to condone the delay in filing the appeal bef…

Shri. Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43ASection 43B

…ed position of law that it is only marginal delays that can be condoned, and not inordinate delays running into several years. We may at this juncture, refer to the Third Member decision of Tribunal (Chennai) in the case of Jt. CIT v/s. Tractors & Farms Ltd. (104 ITD 149)-TM, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and inordinate delay, it has been observed, vide head-note on page 150 of the Reports (104 ITD) as follows- "A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to…

Knp Secuties P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 97/MUM/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ns of the assessee and material available on record Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal considering the fact that the appeal filed by the assessee which has considerable delay and by relying on the decision of the Jt.CIT v. Tractors & Farms Equipments ltd., [2007] 104 ITD 149 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us. 4 ITA.NOs. 96 & 97/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2002-03) KNP Securities Pvt. Ltd., 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 31.03.2014 and assessee supposed to have file the appeal on 30.04.2014 before the Ld.CIT(A).…

Knp Securities P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 96/MUM/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2022/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Section 14ASection 22Section 80I

…. Then after delay of 383 days when the assessee changes its mind to take a chance before the Tribunal, by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be reasonable cause. On similar issue Hon'ble Third Member decision of ITAT Chennai in Tractors & Farm Ltd. (104 ITD 149) has considered by Hon'ble Apex Court decision on this issue and held as under :- 4. The learned counsel for the assessee vehemently relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra), wherein it was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of subst…

Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [Bbmp], Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer [TDS], Ward- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 99/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. V.Chandrasekar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R.)

Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)

…re was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and that there was a difference of opinion between normal delay and inordinate delay. In this regard, the CIT(A) referred to the decision of the ITAT Bench in the case of JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. 104 ITD 149 . The CIT(A) was also of the view that the assessee should prove it was diligent and no guilty of negligence and in this regard referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramla v. Rewa Coalfields (AIR 1962 SC 361) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living…

Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [Bbmp], Bengalore vs. Income Tax Officer, [TDS], Ward- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. V.Chandrasekar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R.)

Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sangam India Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld

Section 2(24)

…1 M/s Sangam India Limited Assessment Year: 2015-16 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “जी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) DCIT-11(1)(2) M/s. Sangam India Ltd. GF, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mu…

Kuldip, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward - 3(2), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 5437/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 144Section 68

…led to show reasons of delay on last day of limitation and thereafter for each day. Reliance in this regard is- placed on decision in the case of Rankak & Ors, Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, JCIT vs Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai-TM) 104 ITD 149, Madhu Dadha vs ACIT (Mad) 317 ITR 458. Considering above facts and circumstances this appeal preferred by the appeal is treated as non-est being defective.” 4. We have noticed undisputed fact that the assessee was in jail during the period from 06/10/2016 to 03/04/2017 in relation to some criminal proceeding against him. The limitation for fili…

M/S Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward-18(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 607/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh S N Gaddi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (D.R)

Section 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ B ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13) M/s. Regional Transport Officer, Vs. Income Tax Officer Rajajinagar (West), (TDS), Rajajinagar Shopping Complex, Ward 18(2), Post Office Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Bangalore-560 010 TAN : BLRRO 1368D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddesh S N Gaddi, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019 O R…

M/S. Odion Builders and Developers, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) - Ward - 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Bhatt, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 133ASection 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

…period of delay in the cited case (Supra) are applicable to facts of the case on hand. 4.4.4 The other decision cited by the ld DR for Revenue is of the Third Member decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd., (104 ITD 149). In this cited case (Supra), the reason put forth by the Director of the Company for delay in filing the appeal was that the order of the CIT(A) was misplaced with some other papers and it is only on sorting out of unwanted papers that he found that no steps had been taken to file the appeal. In that case, Revenue established the fact that the D…

Sunita Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1400/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 147

…lt that appellant has not acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision in the case of Rankak & Ors, Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, JCIT vs Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai-TM) 104 ITD 149, Madhu Dadha vsACIT (Mad) 317 ITR 458. Considering above facts and circumstances this appeal preferred by the appellant is treated as non-est being defective.” 3. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the records submitted that the CIT(A). before the passing of the order did not provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Referring to Form…

Shri.Chandrashekar Reddy, Bellary vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gulbarga

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 2034/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Prasad Reddy HFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…T Katiji (supra), Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil (supra), of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganga Sahai Ram Swaroop (supra) and of the ITAT, Chennai Bench (Third Member) in the case of JCIT V Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai) (TM). The cases cited by the assessee of various courts and of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal (supra), have been duly considered and with due respects we find the factual matrix different therein. We have considered the factual matrix of this case to reach the finding that there existed no sufficient and reasonable cause for t…

Shri.Chandrashekar Reddy, Bellary vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gulbarga

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 2033/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Prasad Reddy HFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Ram Bharose Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…o condone the delay cannot be so liberally construed, and more so where the delay is not of a few days only. 4.3 In this context, we may refer to a recent decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench "B" (TM) in the case of JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd., (2007) 104 ITD 149(Chennai) (TM) where the Third Member agreeing with the view of the Accountant Member and after deliberating upon the decision in the case of Srinvasa Charitable Trust Vs. DCIT, (2006) 280 ITR 357 (Madras), Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil(supra), Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katigi, (1987) 167 ITR 471(…

P.P. Enterprises, Panvel vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 1010/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “SMC” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE "ी डी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सम" "ी "ी क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य सद"य सम" सम" डी डी राव राव लेखा लेखा BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA No.1010/PUN/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" P. P Enterprises. Plot No. 43, Sector 1/S, New Panvel, Panvel-410 206 अपीलाथ"/A…