How many judgments cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT?

616 judgments on BharatTax cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 1961, Section 147, Section 144B.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

67 ITR 84Supreme Court of India1968#97 most cited

What is Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

616

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT · Section 263 revision · assessment erroneous and prejudicial · unearned income offered · Assessing Officer accepting income · Commissioner's power of revision · inadequate inquiry by AO · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. reference · Income Tax Act 1961 Section 263

Also reported as

3 SCC 482240 Taxmann 221

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 1961 Section 147 Section 144B Section 148 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)inadequate enquiry malabar industrial lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial section 263 non-application of mind section 26

Judgments citing Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, Rampyari Devi Sarangi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 82 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).” The same principle has also been reiterated in the following cases: 259 ITR 502 (Guj), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers • 354 ITR 489 (Kar), CIT vs. Digital Global Soft Ltd. • 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. • 395 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Quality Steel Suppliers Complex • 6.2 Keeping into consideration the principle as propounded by the Hon’ble…

Gaurav Kumar Arya, New Delhi vs. PCIT -20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-Ii, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 Pan: Airpa0102C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…ppeal No. 2396/2017) dated 29.11.2017. 2. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) 3. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwals vs. CIT [1073] 88 ITR 323; 4. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT [ 70 taxmann.co.124 - (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512] 8 5 Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 6. Order of Hon'ble ITAT F-Bench in the case of PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, ITA No. 28…

Anand Kumar Bansal, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur -1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Kumar Bansal Madhya Nagari Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ahnpb0374N

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

…al Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 the Pr. CIT in his order observing the assessment order therefore to be erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. Commissioner of 8. Income-Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal, 88 ITR 323 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Commissioners (CIT)’s revisional orders passed u/s. 263 of the Act where the A.O accepted the returned income without making any proper inquiry. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the assessment order passed without any e…

Devendra Kumar Deshmukh, Durg vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in terms of our aforestated observations

ITA 378/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 378/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…nd also considering the deeming nature in Explanation-2, the assessment order, therefore, is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. In the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal, 88 ITR 323 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the 9 Devendra Kumar Deshmukh, Durg vs. PCIT, Raipur-1 Commissioners (CIT)'s revisional orders passed u/s. 263 of the Act where the A.O accepted the returned income without making any proper inquiry. The Hon'ble Apex Court…

Vivek Nathuram Gavhane, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Pune

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

ITA 849/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 69C

…ere a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - RampyariDevi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 9. Now examining the facts of the instant case in light of the above judicial precedents, we note that the certain immovable properties were rented out and for part of the year assessee has earned rental income and for the remaining period has claimed depreciat…

Tansingh, Rajnandgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 377/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.377/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tansingh H. No.124, Gidri, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Adsph4308K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 263

…nd also considering the deeming nature in Explanation-2, the assessment order, therefore, is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. In the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal, 88 ITR 323 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Commissioners (CIT)’s revisional orders passed u/s. 263 of the Act where the A.O accepted the 6 TANSINGH Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur returned income without making any proper inquiry. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the assess…

M/S. Dharavi Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -20, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263Section 80Section 80P

…fering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same 10 ITA No.3105/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2020-21 M/s. Dharavi Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). 6.6 The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in respect of return which is picked up for complete scrutiny. The assessing officer must ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return. It is in this context that Hon’bl…

Dhl Global Forwarding Freight Shared Services (India) LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT)-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Dhl Global Forwarding V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (Pcit) – 41, Room (India) Llp No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5Th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Lbs Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfd3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain a/w S.Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S DHL Global Forwarding v/s. Principal Commissioner of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (PCIT) – 41, Room (India) LLP No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, to C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla LBS Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAPFD3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain a/w S.Chaugule, ARs Respon…

Smt. Anita Banodha Alias Anita Kathgar, Anita Auto, Pondi Chirmiri Korea, Korea vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.230/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smt. Anita Banodha Alias Anita Kathgar Anita Auto, Pondi, West Chirmiri, Korea (C.G)-497 449 Pan: Afgpj1876C ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1(C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…the Order passed by the AO is erroneous, are no longer applicable. Further, it is not out of place to mention that the honorable Supreme Court in the cases of Taradevi Agarwal Vs CIT (1972) 88 ITR 373(SC) and in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) have already held that failure to conduct enquiries on part of AO constitutes assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the decisions rendered without taking into considerations the above decisions of the Supreme Court appear to be incorrect.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 8. Considering the above legal prov…

P Y C Hindu Gymkhana, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1321/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…ere a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - RampyariDevi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 14. Now examining the facts in light of the settled judicial precedents and the provisions of section 263 of the Act as well as going through the decisions referred and relied on by ld. Counsel for the assessee in the paper book filed before us, we firstly deal…

M/S. Kolte-Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune vs. PCIT - 4, Pune

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

ITA 1030/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 41Section 41(1)

…ere a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - RampyariDevi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 16 11. Now, examining the facts of the instant case in the light of the above judgments and discussions, we firstly take up disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld.PCIT has referred to investments made by the assessee in Kalyan Raj Desai JV from which the ass…

Shree Laxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1122/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ere a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - RampyariDevi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 13. Now examining the facts of the case in light of the settled judicial precedents and the provisions of section 263 of the Act, we firstly find that specific query was raised by the AO regarding the claim of deduction under Chapter VIA and the same has been c…

Dr. Pratap Pandhiranath Patil, Pune vs. PCIT - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1026/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Iyer and Shri Siddhant G. BiswasFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing 10 Dr. Pratap Pandharinath Patil Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - RampyariDevi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 16. Now examining the contentions of ld. Counsel for the assessee in light of the settled judicial precedents and the provisions of section 263 of the Act, we note that ld. AO has not disputed the fact that the assessee owns Agricultural land admeasuring 19 Acr…

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…he order of the Assessing Officer would clearly be rendered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. This view is also supported by the following judicial precedents: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (67 ITR 84) has held that when the Income-tax Officer without making any enquiries to satisfy himself, passed the assessment order, it is not necessary to further detail the reasons given by the Commissioner because on the face of the record the orders were prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Swarup Veg…

Jayesh Khimji Khimasiya HUF, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 6/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…al Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. M. M. Khambhatwala, 198 ITR 144 (Gujarat). 23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also considered the ratio laid down in earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 (SC), wherein it was held that “where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue…

Bhanuben Mansukhlal Khimasiya, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 5/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

Mansukhlal Khimji Khimasiya, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 4/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

Mansukhlal Khimji Khimasiya HUF, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 3/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (See 'Rampyari Devi Saraogiv CIT[(1968) 67 ITR 84(SC)] and in ''Tara Devi Aggarwalv.CIT[(1973) 3 SCC 482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied]” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdic…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)