MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

9 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2018#121 most cited
532

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 144Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1A)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 264asection 44aasection 264section 192section 17section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)assessee in defaultsection 201(1)section 251section 201section 44ab

Judgments citing MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Kol 5 vs. Ranjika Gupta

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/80/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Siliguri vs. Neetu Agarwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/3/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nand Kishore Agarwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/22/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gopal Prasad Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/153/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kol vs. Ramakant Beriwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/60/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. M/S Girish Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/157/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Pr CIT 9 Kolkata vs. Girish Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/156/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. Gopal Prasad Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/151/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kolkata vs. Swati Bajaj

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/6/2022HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Jai Ganesh Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Raigad

ITA 542/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.542/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar & Shri S.P.Walimbe
Section 144Section 292CSection 50C(1)

…lease hold rights in the „CIDCO‟ area. We thus hold that such a leasehold rights are nowhere covered u/s.50C(1) going by specified categories therein as per stricter interpretation recently reiterated in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1(SC) (FB). We accordingly reject the Revenue‟s instant sole substantive grievance as well as the main appeal ITA No. 542/PUN/2016. 3. Next comes the assessee‟s cross appeals challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action adding the alleged unaccounted cash component of Rs.5,94,96,000/- in issue. The Revenue vehemently argued that both th…

Jai Ganesh Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd., Raigad vs. I.T.O. Ward 3, Panvel

ITA 2921/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.542/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar & Shri S.P.Walimbe
Section 144Section 292CSection 50C(1)

…lease hold rights in the „CIDCO‟ area. We thus hold that such a leasehold rights are nowhere covered u/s.50C(1) going by specified categories therein as per stricter interpretation recently reiterated in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1(SC) (FB). We accordingly reject the Revenue‟s instant sole substantive grievance as well as the main appeal ITA No. 542/PUN/2016. 3. Next comes the assessee‟s cross appeals challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action adding the alleged unaccounted cash component of Rs.5,94,96,000/- in issue. The Revenue vehemently argued that both th…

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/3/2021HC Calcutta07 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Asha Mahila Bahat Gut, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(8), Aurangabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 686/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.686/PUN/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asha Mahila Bahat Gut, Vs. ITO, Ward-1(8), Aurangabad. MIDC Chikalthana, Aurangabad-431001 PAN : AAALA1655M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai : Date of hearing : 25.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 12.10.2021 passed in case n…

Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, Sonebhadra vs. Dy. CIT, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…f the statute. There is no equity in tax laws and exemption/deduction provisions are to be strictly construed. The decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath & Co. v. CIT reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 885(SC)(refer para 17 to 20) are relevant . Admittedly , in the instant case the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,31,788/- being employee contribution towards PF was not deposited by assessee to the credit of employees with PF Funds within due date pres…

Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3083/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3083/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sharp Designers & Engineers India P.Ltd., Office No.14, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mahalaxmi Heights, S.No. 32/7, 32/8, 33/4, Pune Mumbai Road, Near „Key Hotel‟ , Pimpri, Pune- 411 018. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaack7637E बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Acit, Circle 9, Akurdi, Pune Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.3083/PUN/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sharp Designers & Engineers India P.Ltd., Office No.14, A Wing, 1st floor, Mahalaxmi Heights, S.No. 32/7, 32/8, 33/4, Pune Mumbai Road, Near „Key Hotel‟ , Pimpri, Pune- 411 018. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AAACK7637E बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent ACIT, Circle 9, Akurdi, Pune Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hear…

Vodafone Idea Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1919/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 & 1919/Hyd/2019 A.Ys.: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A…

Vodafone Idea Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1918/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 & 1919/Hyd/2019 A.Ys.: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A…

Vodafone Idea Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1917/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 & 1919/Hyd/2019 A.Ys.: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A…

Vodafone Idea Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1916/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 & 1919/Hyd/2019 A.Ys.: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A…

Vodafone Idea Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1915/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 & 1919/Hyd/2019 A.Ys.: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A…