How many judgments cite Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others?

87 judgments on BharatTax cite Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others (17 SCC 117), spanning 2020 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 90, Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 154, Section 91, Section 295(1).

Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others

17 SCC 117Supreme Court of India2008#1298 most cited

What is Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others authority for?

Procedural law serves as an aid to justice, not an obstruction, and should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; it is subservient to substantive justice.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sambhaji v Gangabai · 17 SCC 117 · procedural law · handmaid of justice · not mandatory · Section 90 · Section 90A · Foreign Tax Credit · Form 67 · delay in appeal · additional grounds

Sections most often in play

Section 90 Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154 Section 91 Section 295(1)Section 90A Section 10A(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 295 section 90a azadi bachao andolan section 255(4)foreign tax credit section 91 section 114(e)section 136 section 90(2)section 43(3)section 193 section 196

Judgments citing Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others

Rajesh Kumar Lakhran, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/JPR/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Choudhary (Proxy)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 154Section 90

…ual importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” Apart from the above decision, I further rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji &Ors. vs. Gangabai&Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 117 (SC) wherein it was held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court, the procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. Thus, a procedural law should not ordinarily be constru…

Saimaa Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-14(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3034/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyal & Saimaa Technologies Llp, 11, Ground Floor, C-Wing, Building No. 1, Kailas Industrial Company, Veer Savarkar Marg, Park Site, Vikhroli (West) Maharashtra -400 079 ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

…rectory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement and violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of Foreign Tax paid as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji & Ors. V. Gangabai & Ors. [(2008) 17 SCC 117] 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the amendment of Rule 128(9) with effect from 1st April, 2022 is curative in nature and therefore, it should be applied retrospectively and hence the amended Rule 128(9) should be applied to the facts of the appellant for A.Y. 2021-22. 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Devesh Mohan Nayel, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 740/BANG/2023[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Vs. Shri. Devesh M Nayel, Circle – 2(2)(1), 301, Rennaisance Regalia 95, Main Road, 15Th Cross, Bengaluru. Malleshwaram, Malleshwaram S.O, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560 003. Pan : Aespn 6617 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Veerabasavana Gowda S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Veerabasavana Gowda S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

…portance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is al…

Narendra Nath Ratnakaram, Bangalore- Maratahalli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 508/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Narendranath Ratnakaram, The Deputy L-1-19, Paramount Commissioner Of Raghavendra, Income Tax, 42/6, Varthur Road, Circle – 5(3)(2), Marathahalli, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aeepr8524A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Adam Kajabee, Ca Revenue By : Shri Parithivel, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19/12/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2020-21 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Against The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act & Prejudicial To The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred By Passing Order U/S. 250 Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being

For Appellant: Ms. Adam Kajabee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 90

…d failed to neither comment on the judgement nor specifically rejected. 7. The Learned CIT (Appeal) when passing the order has ignored the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that- "filing of Form 67 as per the provisions of section 90 read with Rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC with respect to the wordings ". 8. The Learned CIT(A) ignored the provisions of the Act and Rule 128(9) that it is direction to file Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the…

Abhinav Jhalani, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int. Tax.), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sweta Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CITa

Section 154Section 90

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A ” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA. No. 527/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2020-21 Abhinav Jhalani cuke The ACIT Vs. (Int. Tax), 60, Bhagirath Apartment, Ganesh Jaipur Nagar A, New Sanganer Road, Near HDFC Bank, Near Metro Pillar No. 106, Jaipur- 302 019 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFGPJ 3819 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby…

Sudarshan Chitlangia, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 507/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abdulkadir Jawadwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CITa

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 224ASection 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 90

Ashish Agrawal, Pune vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 90

…considered the issue in the light of the provisions of DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of i…

Shalini Bhupal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Smt.Shalini Bhupal Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyerabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Acepb2655G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By 2 Days Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Haritha, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 39Section 90

…considered the issue in the light of the provisions of DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not ITA No. 526/Hyd/2022 S.A.No. 19/Hyd/2022 Page 4 of 5 provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such fili…

Ambibuzz Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1084/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…itions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. 7 A.Y. 2020-21 Ambibuzz Technologies LLP Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is al…

Kazya Watanabe, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 312/BANG/2023[2021-2022]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2023AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2021-22 Mr. Kazuya Watanabe, The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Plot No.21, Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Centralized Processing Centre, Private Limited, Vs. Bengaluru. Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanagara, Bengaluru – 562 109. Pan : Adfpw 5263 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sarwan Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Sarwan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

…portance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an Page 8 of 11 obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the proced…

Shridhar Madhav Diwan, Gachibowli vs. DCIT, Circle 12-(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/HYD/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 May 2023AY 2019-2020

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Subramaniyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 295(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 102/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shridhar Madhav Diwan, Vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN No. AGVPD3196R] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri C.S. Subramaniyam, AR रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date of hearing: 22/05/2023 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 24/05/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER…

Ajay Kumar Mishra, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ajay Kumar Mishra, Vs Dcit, B-12, The Icon, Dlf City, Circle-1(1), Phase-5, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana-122009. Pan-Aowpm7493R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri D.K.Pandey, Ca & Shri Manish Pandey, Ca Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 90

…mportance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and 8 | P a g e not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedu…

Anju Agast Srivats, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, (NFAC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1158/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Ms. Anju Agast Srivats Vs The Income Tax Officer No. 303. Sobha Orchid Nfac, Delhi Jakkur, Bengaluru 560064 Pan – Afsps6930E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain J. Ca Revenue By: Shri Sankarganesh K., Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi’S Order Dated 23.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Wherein He Had Denied The Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc).

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain J. CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K., Addl CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 90

…portance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is al…

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 26/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…ITA No.25&26/Bang/2023 Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.25&26/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shyamol Banerji Flat No.3131, D-2 Block Windmills of Your Mind Road 5B Deputy Commissioner of EPIP Zone Vs. Income-tax Whitefield CPC Bangalore Bangalore PAN NO : ABUPB5760H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department. Date of Hearing : 13.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2023 O R D E R These two…

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 25/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Mahendra Kumar Damani, Viruthunagar vs. ADIT(CPC), Bengalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

ITA 806/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.805 & 806/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2019-20 Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani, V. The Asst. Director Of- 7/5, Velayutham Rastha, Sivakasi, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District-626 123. Cpc, Bangalore.

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 143(1)

…llowed. The assessee placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 AIR 152, 1991 SCR (3) 336) and Sambhaji and others Vs. Gangabai and others reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117 in support of this contention. 9. On careful examination, it is considered that the contention of the assessee is not tenable. The assessee filed his return of income on 16.10.2016, wherein he claimed deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. However, the audit report in Form 56F in support of the said deduction was not filed by the assessee along with the…

Mahendra Kumar Damani, Viruthunagar vs. ADIT(CPC), Bengalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

ITA 805/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 143(1)

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2021-22 Subramanian Sreeram, Vs. The Assistant Director of B 506, Brigade Metropolis, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, CPC, Mahadevapura S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN: AKTPS 9574N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Navneet N. Kini, CA Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against th…

Purushothama Reddy Vanki Reddy, Tirupathi vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 526/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 526/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Purushothama Reddy Vs. Adit (Intn Taxation)-1, Vankireddy Hyderabad Tirupathi [Pan No. Aetpv4382D] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent S.A. No. 19/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.526/Hyd/2022) (निर्धारण‍वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Purushothama Reddy Adit (Intn Taxation)-1, Vankireddy Vs Hyderabad Tirupathi [Pan No. Aetpv4382D] आवेदक / Applicant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध / Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध / Revenue By: Ms. Swapna, Dr सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2022 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 05/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 11/08/2022 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The S.A.No. 19/Hyd/2022 Case Of Purushothama Reddy Vankireddy (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 295(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 526/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Purushothama Reddy Vs. ADIT (INTN Taxation)-1, Vankireddy Hyderabad Tirupathi [PAN No. AETPV4382D] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent S.A. No. 19/Hyd/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.526/Hyd/2022) (निर्धारण‍वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Purushothama Reddy ADIT (INTN Taxation)-1, Vankireddy Vs Hyderabad Tirupathi [PAN No. AETPV4382D] आ…

Rohan Hattangadi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rohan Hattangadi Cit(A), 32,33/A, Peace Haven Society, Faceless Appeal Centre, Vs. Bandra, Mumbai-400 050 Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 139(5)Section 244ASection 250Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Rohan Hattangadi CIT(A), 32,33/A, Peace Haven Society, Faceless Appeal Centre, Vs. Bandra, Mumbai-400 050 Delhi PAN/GIR No. AMFPH 8410 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Niraj Sheth Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh : 06.09.2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Facel…