How many judgments cite Sagar Enterprises v. ACIT?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite Sagar Enterprises v. ACIT (257 ITR 335), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sagar Enterprises v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144.

Sagar Enterprises v. ACIT

257 ITR 335High Court2002#2621 most cited

What is Sagar Enterprises v. ACIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 are invalid if the Assessing Officer's recorded reasons for believing income has escaped assessment are based on factually incorrect premises or do not exist on record, as such reasons cannot confer jurisdiction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sagar Enterprises v. ACIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · factually incorrect reasons · invalid jurisdiction · reasons recorded dehors the fact · income escaping assessment · application of mind · no independent enquiry · reasons not on record

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 66

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 148A Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

sanctioning authority within four years beyond four years material facts necessary for assessment kelvinator accumulated profits section 2(22)change of opinion escapement of income deemed dividend section 2(22)(e)income escaping assessment

Judgments citing Sagar Enterprises v. ACIT

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

…essee]  Sri Adiparashakti Boards, Khammam vs. ITO I.T.A.No.1131/Hyd/2024 (ITAT Hyderabad)  Narendrakumar Mansukhbhai Patel vs. ITO 92 taxmann.com 259 (Guj. HC)  Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO R/SCA No. 21030 of 2017 (Guj. HC)  Sagar Enterprises vs. ACIT 257 ITR 335 (Guj.)  Mitul Gems v. ACIT (62 taxmann.com 66) (Guj.)  BIC Cello (India) (P.) Ltd vs ACIT 160 taxmann.com 474 (Bombay)  Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 4 (Guj.)  Sunbarg Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 16 (Guj.)  Mahadev Trading Co. v. ITO [2012] 18 taxmann.com 353 (Ahd.) b) The notices u/s 148A(b) and 148…

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

GOPAL ANIL KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 862/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 68

…rial; information; documents and which other aspects have been gone through and examined by the sanctioning authority. 8.5 The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sagar Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (Guj-HC) :(2002) 257 ITR 335 has held as under- “4. On going through the entire reasons recorded, it can be seen that in the penultimate paragraph, the respondent has further recorded as under : "Further, the assessee was required to file the return of the income for assessment year 1991-92 which the assessee has failed. Moreover, it was the duty of the assessee to declare…

DORISWAMY GOPI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2020/BANG/2025[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraja K.H, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

…ble in the eyes of law. This question has been answered by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Shri Ashwin S Mehta cited above where the reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sagar enterprises versus DCIT reported in 257 ITR 335. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as under: “16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. We find that the first reason for reopening of the assessment is that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. However, on perusal of Paper Book placed at page-3, we f…

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. ANSHUMAN SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…td. 320 ITR 561. The following judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by the Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad and by various other courts have upheld the above contention of the appellant: Sagar Enterprises v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 335, State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. M/s. Aryaverth Chawal Udyog and others, 2016 (91) VST 1 (SC), CIT v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur [2009] 311 ITR 38 (Punj. & Har.), Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), Jagran Prakashan Allahabad High Court [2014] 367 ITR 534, Hon'…

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 466/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.466/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Urvashi Girishbhai Lal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), C/O Girish Communication, IT-Office, New Aayakar Sardarnagar Main Road, Near Bhawan, Vatiaka, Astron Cinema, Rajkot - 360001 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACGPL9693J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date of…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-\nobjection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 794/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 147

…he notice under section 148, and had merely\nreproduced information provided by the Investigation Wing without\nany application of mind. Reliance in this regard was placed on the\ndecision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sagar Enterprises v.\nACIT [2002] 257 ITR 335 (Guj), wherein it was held that reasons\nbased on factually incorrect premises cannot confer jurisdiction to\nreopen an assessment.\n\n7.4 The learned counsel further assailed the reasons recorded as\nvague, non-specific and inconclusive. It was submitted that the\nAssessing Officer had merely set out a list of twelve scrips and the\nmodus operan…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: \nShri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nSmt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

…, it has been held that there has to be nexus of the reason to believe and\nmaterial available with the AO and which in present case is none as per\nreasons.\n\nReliance is being further placed on the following judgments:-\n\nSagar Enterprises vs. ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 335 (Gujarat High Court)\n\"Notice u/s 148 issued on the ground of factually incorrect basis that the\nassessee had not filed its return could not be sustained even on the basis of\nalternative reason since it could not be said with certainty as to which factor\nweighed with the concerned officer when he issued the impugned notice and\nwhen the respo…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR, 20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AMIT SAMPATHRAJ SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5380/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10Section 143Section 148

…er Section 148 for reopening the assessment was quashed for assumption of jurisdiction on factually incorrect premise. In the similar fact situation, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also quashed the re-assessment proceedings in Sagar Enterprises v. ACIT (2001) 257 ITR 335 (Guj.) where reasons were recorded dehors the fact, i.e., return not filed when the return was actually filed. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Dr. Ajit Gupta v. ACIT (2016) 383 ITR 361: (2017) 79 taxmann.com 316 (Del.) has observed that reason for reopening of assessment based on mistaken factual premise is unsustainable in law. 5.6 The Ho…

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…cannot be made in the eyes of law placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DHFL Venture Capital Fund vs. ITO (358 ITR 471) (Bombay); decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sagar Enterprises vs. ACIT (257 ITR 335) (Guj.). It is further submitted that there was no fresh material brought on record to suggest that the income escaped assessment to tax and the re-assessment proceedings were initiated merely based on change of opinion and in support of his contention reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) ACITvs. Marico Limited (2020) (117 taxmann…

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 881/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

NELLIKKOTE KUNHIPARI MOHAMMEDALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 880/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…recorded and mechanical\napproval. Accordingly, the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and issuance of notice\nunder section 148 of the Act are deserves to be quashed.\n11. In this regard, we rely on the following case laws:\nSagar Enterprises vs. ACIT, (2001) 257 ITR 335 (Guj.)\n\" that it was apparent that the fact of non-filing of the return for the assessment year\n1991-92 had weighed with the respondent for arriving at the satisfaction about the\nfailure on the part of the assessee and escapement of assessment of income.\nHowever, the material on record showed that the return had been filed. In such\ncircumst…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…re,\nreasons recorded by AO were not emerging from record available with him—AO\nrecorded reasons which were not found to exist on record, therefore,\nreassessment framed deserved to be quashed-Assessee's appeal allowed.\"\n• Sagar Enterprises vs. ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 335 (Gujarat High Court)\n• Harjeet Singh vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi), order dated 12.11.2018, in ITA No.\n2013/DEL/2015\n• KMV Collegiate Sr. Sec. School vs. ITO (2017) 163 ITD 653 (Asr.) (Trib.)\n• Fortune Metaliks Limited vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1090/Chd/2019 dated 12.01.2021\nCHD Trib.\nThus AO recorded reasons which were not found to incorrect/non-existing o…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…h him—AO recorded reasons which were not found to exist on record, therefore, reassessment framed deserved to be quashed—Assessee’s appeal allowed.” ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 20  Sagar Enterprises vs. ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 335 (Gujarat High Court)  Harjeet Singh vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi), order dated 12.11.2018, in ITA No. 2013/DEL/2015  KMV Collegiate Sr. Sec. School vs. ITO (2017) 163 ITD 653 (Asr.) (Trib.)  Fortune Metaliks Limited vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1090/Chd/2019 dated 12.01.2021 – CHD Trib. Thus AO recorded reasons which were not found to incorrect/non-existing on re…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

…197 (Amritsar- Trib.) ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Sukhvir Singh Vs ITO. ii). Smt. Monika Rani in ITA No. 582/Chd/2019, dated 28.02.2020. iii). Gaurav Joshi Vs ITO, reported in (2019) 55 CCH 0083 (Jalndhar Camp) iv). Sagar Enterprises Vs ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 335 (Gujarat High Court) v). Harjeet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT) Delhi), order dated 12.11.2018, in ITA No. 2013/Del.2015. vi). KMV Collegiate Sr. Sec. School Vs ITO (2017) 163 ITD 653 (Asr.) (Trib.) vii). Fortune Metaliks Limited. Vs DCI, ITA No. 1090/Chd/2019, dated 12.01.2021-Chd. Trib” 21. The ld. DR relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer a…

MALKIAT AGRO INDUSTRIES 01, CANTT ROAD, NABHA 147201, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. LOVISH SHELLEY THE DCIT CIRCLE MANDIGOBIND GARH JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER NABHA, PUNJAB

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri K.K. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

…ar Bench, of ITAT Amritsar (Jalandhar Camp), in the case of Gaurav Joshi Vs. ITO as reported at (2019) 55 CCH 0083. 3. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries reported at 180ITR 319. 4. Sagar Enterprises vs. ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 335 (Gujarat High Court) 5. Harjeet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi), order dated 12.11.2018, in ITA No. 2013/DEL/2015 6. KMV Collegiate Sr. Sec. School v. ITO (2017) 163ITD 653 (Asr.) (Trib.) 7. Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 965 (Chd.)(Trib.) 8. Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV V/s ADIT, in ITA No. 495/MUM/2016…

JATIN GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

…fficer and ld CIT (A) has not given any reason for not accepting the explanation and evidences offered by the appellant for the said loan. In support, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the Case of Sagar Enterprises Vs. ACIT (257 ITR 335 Guj), wherein the Hon’ble Court has held: "It would not be possible to say with certainty as to which factor would have weighed with the officer concerned and once it is shown that an irrelevant fact has been taking into consideration, to what extent the decision is vitiated would be difficult". 17. It was submitted that the Ld. Assessing Office…

M/S BCL INDUSTRIES LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 409/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…regard has sought to be placed on the following case laws : i) Order of Chandigarh Bench in the case of Smt. Monika Rani W/o Shri Ashok Kumar In ITA No.l582/Chd/2019. ii) Judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Sagar Enterprises vs ACIT" as reported in 257 ITR 335 iii) Order of ITAT, Chandigarh "SMC" Bench in the case of Baba Karta Singh Dukki Educational Trust Vs ITO ITA 407 & 409/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 4 iv) Order of ITAT Jaipur Bench in case of Shri Ram Mohan Rawat Vs. ITO 1014/JP/2018 dated 10.10.2019 v) Gaurav Joshi Vs Income Tax Officer [2019] 55 CCH 0083 (Amritsar Bench) vi) Sh. Jaspal Singh (Chand…

KISSAN FATS LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 407/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3