T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT

66 ITR 465Supreme Court of India1967#1269 most cited

What is T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT authority for?

Interest received under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for delayed or enhanced compensation, is a revenue receipt and is taxable under the Income Tax Act.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT · 66 ITR 465 · interest on delayed compensation · Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 28 · Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 34 · revenue receipt taxable · compensation income taxability · Income Tax Act 1961 · Section 45(5) · taxability of interest on enhanced compensation

Sections most often in play

Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 1961Section 57(iv)Section 145ASection 45(5)Section 1894Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 45(5)(b)section 104section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 23(2)section 160

Judgments citing T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT

Sh. Amrik Singh, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panchkula

ITA 219/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

Sh. Pargat Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kaithal

ITA 180/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

Sh. Gurinder Singh Grewal L/H of Parneet Kaur Grewal, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh

ITA 129/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

M/S Yograj Chaudhary, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 116/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

Sh. Ramesh Chand, Jagadhri vs. ITO, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 731/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

Sh. Suresh Pal, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 5, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 668/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

Sh. Kulbir Singh S/O Sh. Jagir Singh, Pinjore vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panchkula

ITA 641/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

Saroj Chaudhary Bala, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panchkula

ITA 635/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465 : AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)] . Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is tru…

Smt. Shankri Devi, Panchkula vs. ACIT, Panckula Circle, Panchkula

ITA 596/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465 : AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)] . Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is tru…

Harmala, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nangal

ITA 432/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

Amrinder Singh Khubber, Ambala vs. ITO, W-5, Ambala

ITA 1044/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

Amrinder Singh Khubber, Ambala vs. ITO, W-5, Ambala

ITA 1043/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true…

Vijay Singh Chauhan, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2561/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 34

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129], Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [(1990) 181 ITR 408 (SC)]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true that in amending the definition o…

Veeraswamy Jotheeswaran, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 1756/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी), "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज", उपा"य" के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1756/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Veeraswamy Jotheeswaran, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.23, Sri Lakshmi Narayana, Vs. Ward 1, Nivasam Santhosh Nagar 89, Tiruvallur Veppambattu B.O, Veppampattu, Tiruvallur – 602 024. PAN: AORPJ 2510H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Y. Sudarshan…

Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 56(2)(viii)

…CBDT, New Delhi [2020] 120 taxmann.com 400/275 Taxтan 222/423 ITR 13 (Punjab & Haryana); Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, Ministry of Finance [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105/279 Taxman 74/462 ITR 498 (SC); T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 66 ITR 465 (SC); Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector [(1997) 10 SCC 243/[1996] 89 Taxтan 119/224 ITR 551 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [(2009) 8 SCC 412/[2009] 182 Taxman 368/315 ITR 1 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax. Faridabad v. Chet Ram (HUF) [(2018) 15 SCC 270/[2017] 86 taxmann.com 103/251 Taxman 4/400 ITR 23 (S…

Jai Bhagwan, Vpo Badshahpur, Gurgaon, Hr vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon, Haryana

The appeal stands allowed and the concurrent findings of the AO and CIT(A) are hereby affirmed

ITA 3239/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrajai Bhagwan Vs. Income Tax Officer Vpo Badshahpur Income Tax Building Gurgaon Gurugram- 122001 Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amapb8989P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 2Section 28Section 4Section 56

…P a g e | 1 Jai Bhagwan (AY: 2014-15) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jai Bhagwan Vs. Income Tax Officer VPO Badshahpur Income Tax Building Gurgaon Gurugram- 122001 Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AMAPB8989P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2025 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by…

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Gurdev Singh, Panipat

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5259/DEL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Room No. 203, Vs. Gurdev Singh, First Floor, Aayakar 1, Village Rajapur, Post Bhawan, Sector-6, Office Dadlana, Panipat Panipat-132024 (Pan: Fwxps8888E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025

Section 145BSection 28Section 34Section 45(5)Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.YR. : 2018-19 ITO, WARD-1, ROOM NO. 203, Vs. GURDEV SINGH, FIRST FLOOR, AAYAKAR 1, VILLAGE RAJAPUR, POST BHAWAN, SECTOR-6, OFFICE DADLANA, PANIPAT PANIPAT-132024 (PAN: FWXPS8888E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.05.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 19.8.2024 passed by the NFAC, Del…

Jagjit Singh Kataria, Sonepat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1245/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…1 Jagjit Singh Kataria Vs. Pr. CIT THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI S RIFAUR RAHMN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jagjit Singh Kataria, Vs. Principal CIT, H. No. 2333, HBC Sector-15, Rohtak Sonepat, Haryana, 131001 PAN :AQFPK6338L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Suresh K. Gupta, CA Department by Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CIT( DR) Date of hearing 22.10.2024 Date of pronouncement 10.12.2024 ORDER PERYOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The Assessee preferred the captioned appeal by challenging the orde…

Vachaspati Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 18Section 234BSection 234DSection 28Section 45(5)Section 56

…id for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue reccipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465: AIR 1968 SC 129], Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [(1990) 181 ITR 408 (SC)). Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. It is true that in amending the definition o…

Universal Tractor Holding Llc, Usa vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2216/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Durgesh Shankar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Neorem, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 49

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No. 2216/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Universal Tractor Holding LLC, Vs DCIT, 1013, Center Road, City of International Taxation, Wilmington, County of New Castle, Circle-3(1)(1), Delaware, USA-19805 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCU2669J Assessee by : Sh. Durgesh Shankar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Banita Devi Neorem, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 06.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present a…