Rishabchand Bhansali v. Dy. CIT

267 ITR 577High Court2004#458 most cited

What is Rishabchand Bhansali v. Dy. CIT authority for?

The previous approval required for assessment orders under provisions like Section 158BG or Section 153D is an administrative power and an internal matter, not deciding the assessee's rights. A mere irregularity in granting such administrative approval does not vitiate the assessment order.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rishabchand Bhansali v. Dy. CIT · 267 ITR 577 · Section 158BG approval · Section 153D approval · administrative power · internal matter · irregularity in approval · not fatal to assessment · search assessment approval · block assessment approval

Also reported as

136 Taxmann 579

Sections most often in play

Section 153DSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 132Section 158BGSection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(31a)section 100section 76section 142(2c)section 114(e)section 43(3)section 153b(1)(b)section 136section 274(2)section 144basection 193section 196

Judgments citing Rishabchand Bhansali v. Dy. CIT

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8534/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…although Clause-9 of the Manual of Office Procedure stipulates it. This, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT 96 taxmann.com 233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. M/s AKN Developers Pvt. Ltd. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8533/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…although Clause-9 of the Manual of Office Procedure stipulates it. This, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT 96 taxmann.com 233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. M/s AKN Developers Pvt. Ltd. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1792/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…lthough Clause-9 of the Manual of Office Procedure stipulates it. This, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT 96 taxmann.com 233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. L…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1791/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…lthough Clause-9 of the Manual of Office Procedure stipulates it. This, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT 96 taxmann.com 233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. L…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…lthough Clause-9 of the Manual of Office Procedure stipulates it. This, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT 96 taxmann.com 233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. L…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1789/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…lthough Clause-9 of the Manual of Office Procedure stipulates it. This, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT 96 taxmann.com 233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. L…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…lthough Clause-9 of the Manual of Office Procedure stipulates it. This, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT 96 taxmann.com 233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. L…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…lthough Clause-9 of the Manual of Office Procedure stipulates it. This, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT 96 taxmann.com 233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. L…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…lthough Clause-9 of the Manual of Office Procedure stipulates it. This, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT 96 taxmann.com 233 and Rishab Chand Bhansali v. DCIT 267 ITR 577 and of the Madras High Court in Sakthivel Bankers v. ACIT 255 ITR 144 which were all in the context of Section 158 BG of the Act. (v) The mere irregularity in granting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. L…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2693/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshseh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, Central Circle-8, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M Acit, Vs. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-8, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi Phase-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M Co No. 9/Del/2022 (In Ita No.2693/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Vs. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-8, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi Phase-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 7

…s issue of approval being granted u/s 153D of the Act in a mechanical manner was never raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rishabchand Bhansali vs DCIT reported in 267 ITR 577 (Kar) and also on the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 22.12.2006 on the subject of Search and Seizure Assessments. 6. At the outset, we find that the decision relied by the ld. DR of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court referred supra is factually distinguishable as it was dealing with the issue of whether it is manda…

M/S. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2503/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshseh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, Central Circle-8, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M Acit, Vs. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-8, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi Phase-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M Co No. 9/Del/2022 (In Ita No.2693/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Vs. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-8, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi Phase-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 7

…s issue of approval being granted u/s 153D of the Act in a mechanical manner was never raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rishabchand Bhansali vs DCIT reported in 267 ITR 577 (Kar) and also on the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 22.12.2006 on the subject of Search and Seizure Assessments. 6. At the outset, we find that the decision relied by the ld. DR of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court referred supra is factually distinguishable as it was dealing with the issue of whether it is manda…

M/S Ganesh Builders, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…n the rights or obligations of the assessee firm, but only considers whether the Assessing Officer has fulfilled the requirements of section 153A. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rishabhchand Bhansali v. DCIT, 267 ITR 577, wherein it is held as under: "4.2 ........ thirdly the order passed by the Joint Commissioner granting previous approval under the proviso to section 158BG is in exercise of administrative power on being satisfied that the order of assessment has been made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIV-B. The previous approval is purely an int…

M/S Luxmi Builders, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…n the rights or obligations of the assessee firm, but only considers whether the Assessing Officer has fulfilled the requirements of section 153A. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rishabhchand Bhansali v. DCIT, 267 ITR 577, wherein it is held as under: "4.2 ........ thirdly the order passed by the Joint Commissioner granting previous approval under the proviso to section 158BG is in exercise of administrative power on being satisfied that the order of assessment has been made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIV-B. The previous approval is purely an int…

Dilip B. Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-II, Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 355/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Ved
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271A

…n the decision in the case of Gopal S Pandith vs DCIT[2016] 74 taxmann.com 273(Bangalore-Trib.). In the following cases, it was also held that the CIT need not give opportunity of hearing to assessee before approval u/s158BG i. Rishab Chand Bhansali vs DCIT [267 ITR 577(Kar)). ii. Shaktavail Bankers vs DCIT (255ITR144(Mad] iii. Kailash Mandgil vs DCIT (72 ITD 97 (ITAT Del.)(SB)]. 6.1 The appellant has also argued that there is no satisfaction/application of mind of Addl. CIT before granting approval. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in case of Sahara India vs CIT, 169 Taxmann 328(SC). The facts and i…

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 81/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA Nos.76 to 81/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 to 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 PAN No. :ADAPP 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /R…

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 80/CTK/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA Nos.76 to 81/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 to 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 PAN No. :ADAPP 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /R…

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 79/CTK/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA Nos.76 to 81/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 to 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 PAN No. :ADAPP 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /R…

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA Nos.76 to 81/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 to 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 PAN No. :ADAPP 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /R…

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 77/CTK/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA Nos.76 to 81/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 to 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 PAN No. :ADAPP 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /R…

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 76/CTK/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA Nos.76 to 81/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 to 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 PAN No. :ADAPP 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /R…