What is Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh authority for?

The case distinguishes between legitimate tax planning and transactions that are colourable devices or shams, affirming that while legal arrangements to reduce tax are permissible, transactions lacking legitimacy and designed purely to evade tax are not.

How many judgments cite Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh?

70 judgments on BharatTax cite Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (8 SCC 667), spanning 2004 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 35D, Section 40(a)(i), Section 80HHC, Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 28(iiid).

Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (8 SCC 667)

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

C.A. No.-000262-000262 - 2026Supreme Court15 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

…ove, in cases of treaty shopping and/or tax avoidance, there is no conflict between McDowell [(1985) 3 SCC 230 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 391] and Azadi Bachao [(2004) 10 SCC 1] or between McDowell [(1985) 3 SCC 230 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 391] and Mathuram Agrawal [(1999) 8 SCC 667] . XXXX XXXX XXXX 72. The approach of both the corporate and tax laws, particularly in the matter of corporate taxation, generally is founded on the abovementioned separate entity principle i.e. treat a company as a separate person. The Income Tax Act, 1961, in the matter of corporate taxation, is founded on the principle of the indep…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5031/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…h price at Rs.75 Crores was far in excess of the market value which stood about Rs.28 Crores. We have also noted that reliance of ld. AO upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell Case 3 SCC 230, Azadi Bachao 10 SCC 1 and Mathuram Agarwal 8 SCC 667 Page 49 of 54 ITA Nos.5029 & 5031/Del/2024 & CO No.42/Del/2025 holding that a colourable device cannot be a part of tax planning while concluding that the impugned transactions were sham transactions and lacking any legitimacy is correct. We have also noted that the sale of Jorbagh property for Rs.31,50,00,000/- so as to give rise to the impugn…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5029/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…h price at Rs.75 Crores was far in excess of the market value which stood about Rs.28 Crores. We have also noted that reliance of ld. AO upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell Case 3 SCC 230, Azadi Bachao 10 SCC 1 and Mathuram Agarwal 8 SCC 667 Page 49 of 54 ITA Nos.5029 & 5031/Del/2024 & CO No.42/Del/2025 holding that a colourable device cannot be a part of tax planning while concluding that the impugned transactions were sham transactions and lacking any legitimacy is correct. We have also noted that the sale of Jorbagh property for Rs.31,50,00,000/- so as to give rise to the impugn…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( FORMERLY BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

ITA 5299/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)

…No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n41 \n \n222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to \nthe judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam \n[1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram \nAgrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh \n(1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further \nobserved that the word "device" or \n"sham" could not be used to defeat the \neffect of a legal situation. \n \n6. In view of the finding recorded by \nthe Tribunal in the facts of this case, no \nsubstantial question of law arises. The \nappeal is dismissed." \n \n25.5 Thus, the Hon'ble Court held that lease \nagreement where th…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

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

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)

…TA No. 535/Mum/2010 ITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed." 25.5 Thus, the Hon'ble Court held that lease agreement where the asset is leased back…

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Filmnagar, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2098P. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G. HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year – 2017-18 Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Filmnagar, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AABCP2098P. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri K.C.Devdas, CA Revenue by: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 10.10.2024 Date of pronouncement: 27.11.2024 O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. The appeal filed by the assesse…

SAHIL SINGLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1018/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

…rmation received from the third party that he was determined to make these additions under all circumstances. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Mathuram Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 in which it was held that- "A five Judges Bench judgment of this Court in Mathuram Agrowal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667, after referring to the judgment in B.M. Kharwar (supra) as well as the opinion expressed by Lord Roskill on Duke of Westminster stated that the subject is not to be taxed by inference or analogy, but only by the p…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed." 25.5 Thus, the Hon'ble Court held that lease agreement where the asset is leased back t…

ACIT-2(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VALLABH ROOPCHAND BHANSHALI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 889/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyalacit Circle 2(1) (1), R. No. 575, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. Shri Vallabh Roopchand Bhansali, 18Th Floor, 191, Dongarsi Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006 Pan: Aabpb4198H ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ankush Kapoor, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Balaram Murthy, Ld. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 250

…einabove, in cases of treaty shopping and/or tax avoidance, there is no conflict between McDowell [(1985) 3 SCC 230: 1985 SCC (Tax) 391] and Azadi Bachao [(2004) 10 SCC 1] or between McDowell [(1985) 3 SCC 230: 1985 SCC (Tax) 391] and Mathuram Agrawal [(1999) 8 SCC 667].” 8. Thus, in light of the above judgements it is patently clear that the Assessee should not be encouraged to avoid payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods through colourable devices and that such devices cannot be a part of tax planning. We came to this conclusion in view of the fact that assessee transferred the above mentioned two list…

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed." 25.5 Thus, the Hon'ble Court held that lease agreement where the asset is leased back t…

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High Court in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to the judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam [1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667. It: was further observed that the word "device" or "sham" could not be used to defeat the effect of a legal situation. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed." 25.5 Thus, the Hon'ble Court held that lease agreement where the asset is leased back t…

DCIT CIRCLE -1 (EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NARODA ENVIRO PROJCT LIMITED , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 360/AHD/2024[2016 17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 2(15)Section 25

…the plain, unambiguous language of the statute. Words cannot be added to or substituted so as to give a meaning to the statute which will serve the spirit and intention of the legislature. (See Mathuram Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 667) 45. The first and the foremost thing we want to clarify is that the registration of the assessee as a Charitable Institution and the license granted to the assessee as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act would, prima facie, clothe the assesseee with the character of a charitable institution. However, neither of the above two events is…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited v. DCIT – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN : AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT – Range – 3(1) v. M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN : AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited v. DCIT – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN : AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT – Range – 3(1) v. M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN : AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar…

CPI INDIA I LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INT.TAX. CIRCLE-1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 382/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2016-17 . Cpi India Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O- Vasa Chauhan & International Taxation, Associates Off. No. 41, Circle -1(2)1), 3Rd Floor, High Life Premises, Delhi P.M. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai Pan :Aadcc1505G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 112(1)(c)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 48Section 48(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2016-17 . CPI India Ltd., Vs. ACIT, C/o- Vasa Chauhan and International Taxation, Associates Off. No. 41, Circle -1(2)1), 3rd Floor, High Life Premises, Delhi P.M. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai PAN :AADCC1505G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Advocate Department by Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10.11.2023 Date of pronouncement 21.11.2023 ORDER Captioned appeal of the assessee challen…

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINOD BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 66/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14