Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

116 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1979#177 most cited

What is Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A gain arising from the cancellation of a forward exchange contract entered into for the acquisition of a capital asset constitutes a capital receipt. Income-tax liability for such transactions is determined by the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, independent of the accounting treatment in the books of account.

409

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd · 116 ITR 1 · capital receipt · foreign exchange gain · forward contract · capital asset · Section 43A · income tax liability · accounting treatment · capital gains

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 32Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 43aeligible businessbook profitssection 115jsection 115jbrevenue expendituresection 80iamercantile system of accountingamalgamationsection 37(1)section 80isection 43

Judgments citing Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1980/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 143(3)

…P&L account and is not to be adjusted against the cost of raw materials.” 4.5.3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor (supra) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC), where it is held that if loss of foreign exchange fluctuation was on account of trading liability, the same would be allowable. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eicher Good Earth in ITA No. 7078 of 1992 observed that the mercantile system of accounting made it mandatory to translate the outstanding liability on the basis of fl…

Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 5208/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-3(1)(1) Vs. M/S Bajaj Hindustan Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Sugar Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, ( Ea R L I E R K N O W N A S M / S B A J A J H I N D U S T A N L T D ) Bajaj Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Jamanalal Bajaj, Marg- Mumbai – 400 020 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb4351J Appellant .. Respondent M/S Bajaj Hindustan Vs. Acit-3(1)(1) Sugar Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, ( Ea R L I E R K N O W N A S M / S B A J A J H I N D U S T A N L T D ) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Jamanalal Bajaj, Marg- Mumbai – 400 020 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb4351J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Mahesh Akhade
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…circumstances we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer for deciding the same after verification/examination of relevant material after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sutlaj Cotton Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, this additional ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Additional Ground No. 2: claim of deduction in respect of amount transferred to Debenture Redemption Reserve in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of Rs.118,75,00,000/-: 26. In this regard, the ld. Counsel submitted that the aforesaid amount was set apart f…

Bajaj Hindustan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 5058/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-3(1)(1) Vs. M/S Bajaj Hindustan Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Sugar Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, ( Ea R L I E R K N O W N A S M / S B A J A J H I N D U S T A N L T D ) Bajaj Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Jamanalal Bajaj, Marg- Mumbai – 400 020 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb4351J Appellant .. Respondent M/S Bajaj Hindustan Vs. Acit-3(1)(1) Sugar Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, ( Ea R L I E R K N O W N A S M / S B A J A J H I N D U S T A N L T D ) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Jamanalal Bajaj, Marg- Mumbai – 400 020 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb4351J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Mahesh Akhade
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…circumstances we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer for deciding the same after verification/examination of relevant material after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sutlaj Cotton Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, this additional ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Additional Ground No. 2: claim of deduction in respect of amount transferred to Debenture Redemption Reserve in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of Rs.118,75,00,000/-: 26. In this regard, the ld. Counsel submitted that the aforesaid amount was set apart f…

Lifecell International Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3334/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

…visions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin :-27-: ITA. No:3334/Chny/2019 Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1849/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1848/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1557/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1532/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1531/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1530/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 613/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 532/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 509/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 449/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…scrutiny of the said decision indicates that the Calcutta High Court in this case relied upon its earlier judgement in Sutlej Cottons Mills Ltd v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 641. It will be recalled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT(1979) 116 ITR 1 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court on this point and held that such liability would be treated as a trading loss. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Bestobell (India Ltd., (1979) 117 ITR 789 appears misplaced." 56. The controversy stands now resolved…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -3 (1), Indore vs. M/S M.P. Entertainment and Developers Private Limited, Indore

ITA 203/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…n is assessable to tax. 4.5.1 The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Company Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 66 (SC) and in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 116 ITR 1 for the purpose that the entries made by an assessee in his books are not determinative and what is necessary to be considered is the true nature of the transaction. However, I find that in the instant case, the determination of income of the appellant is not based upon the entries made by it in its books of account. 4.5.2 The Assessing Officer has…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 344/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…n is assessable to tax. 4.5.1 The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Company Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 66 (SC) and in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 116 ITR 1 for the purpose that the entries made by an assessee in his books are not determinative and what is necessary to be considered is the true nature of the transaction. However, I find that in the instant case, the determination of income of the appellant is not based upon the entries made by it in its books of account. 4.5.2 The Assessing Officer has…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 118/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…n is assessable to tax. 4.5.1 The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Company Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 66 (SC) and in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 116 ITR 1 for the purpose that the entries made by an assessee in his books are not determinative and what is necessary to be considered is the true nature of the transaction. However, I find that in the instant case, the determination of income of the appellant is not based upon the entries made by it in its books of account. 4.5.2 The Assessing Officer has…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 117/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…n is assessable to tax. 4.5.1 The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Company Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 66 (SC) and in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 116 ITR 1 for the purpose that the entries made by an assessee in his books are not determinative and what is necessary to be considered is the true nature of the transaction. However, I find that in the instant case, the determination of income of the appellant is not based upon the entries made by it in its books of account. 4.5.2 The Assessing Officer has…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 54 of 99 Ltd. in 227 ITR 172; in the case of Godhra Electricity Company in 91 Taxman 91; in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd in 263 ITR 315 and in the case of Sutlet Cotton Mills Ltd. in 116 ITR 1 and submitted that it would be totally incorrect to say that an assessee who raises internal invoices would be entitled to benefit of Sec 80IA and an assessee who does not raise internal invoices would not be entitled to such benefit. 13.2. The assessee further submitted that Sec. 80IA(8) itself contemplates a situation where goods or services are…

International Travel House Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-12(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8423/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2016-17] International Travel House ACIT, Limited, Circle-12(2), T-2 Community Centre, Vs C.R. Building, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-1, ITO, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACI0093G Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Sh. Saurya Jain, CA, and Sh. Deepsh Jain, CA Revenue by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is dir…