How many judgments cite Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT (407 ITR 254), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 69A, Section 69, Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 115BBE.

Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT

407 ITR 254High Court2018#2198 most cited

What is Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT authority for?

An appellate authority cannot sustain or reclassify an addition made by the Assessing Officer under a specific section of the Income Tax Act by invoking a different section, especially if the alternative section was not the original subject matter of the dispute.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT · Sarika Jain · Section 68 · Section 69A · Income Tax Act 1961 · addition under one section · upholding addition under another section · appellate powers · scope of ITAT · reclassification of income

Also reported as

84 Taxmann.com 64

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 69A Section 69 Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 115BBE Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 139(3)section 108 section 10ba section 10b(8)section 80ia(8)cost plus method interest on outstanding receivables interest u/s 234c section 80a(5)penalty proceedings initiated section 80ia(4)deduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT

Raghvendra Singh Thakur, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

The appeal is allowed

ITA 242/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raghvendra Singh Thakur, H.No.238, Sarona, Tatibandh, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Akbpt7616E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(14)(ii)Section 69rSection 80C

…delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of th…

Dcm Shriram Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.927/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2015-16] DCIT, Circle-7(1), Room No.404, C.R. Building, New Delhi-110002. vs DCM Shriram Ltd., 5th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18-Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. PAN-AAACD0079R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.704/Del/2021 [Assessment Year : 2016-17] DCM Shriram Ltd., 2nd Floor (West Wing), Worldmark 1, Aerocity, New Delhi-110…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.927/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2015-16] DCIT, Circle-7(1), Room No.404, C.R. Building, New Delhi-110002. vs DCM Shriram Ltd., 5th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18-Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. PAN-AAACD0079R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.704/Del/2021 [Assessment Year : 2016-17] DCM Shriram Ltd., 2nd Floor (West Wing), Worldmark 1, Aerocity, New Delhi-110037. PA…

Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

Dcm Shriiram Limited, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.927/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2015-16] DCIT, Circle-7(1), Room No.404, C.R. Building, New Delhi-110002. APPELLANT ITA No.704/Del/2021 [Assessment Year : 2016-17] DCM Shriram Ltd., 2nd Floor (West Wing), Worldmark 1, Aerocity, New Delhi-110037. PAN-AAACD0097R APPELLANT ITA No.2587/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2018-19] DCM Shriram Ltd., 2nd Floor (West Wing), Worldmark 1, Aerocity, N…

Rishi Agarwal, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Guwahati

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

ITA 266/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

…ng officer have to prove that such investments had been made in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year in question. b) Reliance also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 254 (ALL), for the proposition when the dispute before the Tribunal is for addition made under section 69C, the Tribunal cannot travel beyond that. 2. Ground Nos. 3 to 5: Addition on the basis of document of 3rd party: The issue that addition cannot be made on the basis of an entry in the documents or books of account of a third party or a statement…

Pradeep Kumar, Lucknow vs. ACIT-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 198/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADAMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar v. The ACIT-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow PAN:ABLPK8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 10 07 2024 Date of pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delh…

Alexis Global Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Delhi

ITA 2497/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 69C

…f an addition has been made by invoking a particular section under the deeming provisions, the ITAT has no power and jurisdiction to assess it under any other section concerning the deeming fiction. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case. Smt. Sarika Jaln (407 ITR 254) (Allahabad High Court) holds so the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: "15. The use of the word "thereon" is important and it reflects that the Tribunal has to confined itself to the questions, which are arising or are subject matter in the appeal and it cannot be travelled beyond the same. The power to pass such orders as the Tr…

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 753/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Satwant Agro Engineers बनाम The DCIT Sangrur Road, Bhawanigarh, Central Circle Punjab-148026 Patiala "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AANFS9148Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Deepak Anand, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dhar…

Lagan Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1933/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-1(1) Lagan Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Room No.206 & 207, 4/1, Middleton Street, Sikkim Chowringhee Square, Vs. Commerce House, Kolkata- Kolkata-700069, 700071, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl5732E Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITO, Ward-1(1) Lagan Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2nd Floor, Room No.206 & 207, 4/1, Middleton Street, Sikkim Chowringhee Square, Vs. Commerce House, Kolkata- Kolkata-700069, 700071, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCL5732E Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Sailen Samadder, DR Date of hearing: 17.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 31.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the…

Tarlochan Singh, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 754/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Tarlochan Singh बनाम The DCIT Prop. M/s Satwant Agro Tech Central Circle Bhawanigarh Patiala "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABRPS6074J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Deepak Anand, Advocate Shri Ritesh Anand, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT,…

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(2), Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 658/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal.

Section 69

…I.T.A.No.658/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.658/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Sanjeev Kumar ITO C/o M/s Raj Kumar & Associates, Vs. Ward 2(3)(2) L-7A (LGF), South Extension, Bulandshahr. Part-II, New Delhi. PAN No. AATPK4646E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 29.08.2023 18.10.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R This appeal has been filed by the…

Mr. Mohammed Hanif Mohammed Yusuf Dharwadkar, Hubli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 135/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veera Raghavan, D.R

Section 147Section 234ASection 68

…ar, Hubli Page 13 of 18 which can be fatal to the interest of Revenue. However, as a Tribunal, we are not competent to make addition u/s 69A of the Act, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254. Hon’ble High Court observed as under. “18. In view of the above, when the said income cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under section 69A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law.” Respectfully following the above observation by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court,…

M/S. Toyota Tausho India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(1)(1), Bengaluru

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2806/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…8 of the Act cannot be sustained. It was also submitted by him that the Tribunal cannot take recourse to the provisions of section 69A of the Act and in this regard relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. CIT 407 ITR 254 (Allahabad) wherein the Hon’ble High Court took the view that the Tribunal does not have the power to change the addition made under section 68 of the Act and sustain addition under section 69A of the Act. Learned DR on the other hand submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. AC…

Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1737/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 131Section 68

…atements was not justified. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand H.Gandhi [141 ITR 67 (Bom.)] and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.Sarika Jain v.CIT (407 ITR 254). The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the Tribunal is not competent to sustain the addition u/s 69A of the Act after deleting the said addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stands vitiated in law. Being so, the amount found credited in the bank account of the assessee cann…

Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 25(3), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4903/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 2Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…1 Toffee Agricultural Farms P. Ltd. Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. _4903/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Vs Income-tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward 25(3), New Delhi 67, Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 PAN- AACCT3058J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Anil Bhalla, CA Respondent by Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.02.2022 Date of pronouncement 18.04.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner…

Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa Legal Heir of Lt.Jaskiran Singh Bajwa, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी आर.एल. नेगी, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VP & SHRI R.L. NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 962/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa The ITO बनाम Legal heir Lt. Jaskiran Singh Bajwa Ward 3(1), Chandigarh H.No. 3077, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACRPB9826E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Aman Parti, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Rev…

M/S. Kokkarne Prabhakar, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Hubballi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1239/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

Section 143(3)Section 44A

Syed Maqsoodulla, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Syed Maqsoodulla, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.14, 7Th “A’ Cross Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore. ‘D’ Block, Magadi Road Bangalore-560023. [Pan:Cycps 3116F]

Section 115BSection 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

Sri Halimpure Sharanappa Premsagar, Bidar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bidar

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3070/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate & Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 251(2)Section 68Section 69A

…ustaining addition u/s. 69A after deleting it u/s. 68 of the Act. This issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Sri Girish V. Yalakkishettar (supra) and relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT, 407 ITR 254 (All), wherein it was held that use of the word “thereon” is important and it reflects that the Tribunal has to confine itself to the questions which arise or are subject matter in the appeal and it cannot be travelled beyond that. The power to pass such order as the Tribunal thinks fit can be exercised only in relation to the matter that arises…