← All Phrases

“Section 226(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 226Section 226(3)42 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1599/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA\nBEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

BANDREDDY BANDLA REDDY,PULIVENDULA vs. ITO., WARD-1, KADAPA

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

ITA 506/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.506/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Bandreddy Bandla The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Pulivendula. Ward-1, Pin – 516 390. Vs. Kadapa – 516 390. Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan Apzpb2735D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ms S Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: MS S Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 281(1)(b)

1 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench

BHAVIK SHASHIKANT THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 27(1), VASHI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5208/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbhavik Shashikant Thakkar Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income G 601 Kukreja Palace Tax, Ward 27(1), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Station Opportunity Pok, Maharashtra-400075 Complex, Vashi-400703 Pan: Acypt3095J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Adv Respondent By : Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13, Date Of Order 28.11.2022. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Acit-27(1), Mumbai (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Date Of Order 24.03.2015 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

also brought to our notice that recovery proceedings have been initiated against the assessee by issuance of notice under 5 Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar section 226(3) of the Act dated 23.07.2025. By way of a sworn affidavit, the assessee has further confirmed that during the COVID-19 pandemic

GARRAH SKUS LIMITED,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, BANKURA

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

ITA 2361/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 226(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

JAYSHREE CHANDRASINGH KABALI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 27 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7226/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

JAYSHREE CHANDRASINGH KABALI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 27 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7225/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

RUPINDER KAUR,KHAMANO, FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SIRHIND

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed\n"आर

ITA 823/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh B.M. Monga andFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr
Section 115BSection 69A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nCHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH\nBEFORE SHRI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1708/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVERNEWCOMMODEAL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1536/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVERNEWCOMMODEAL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1535/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

ALPESHBHAI BALDEVBHAI RABARI,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1237/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Alpeshbhai Baldevbhai Rabari Ito, Ward-1 3, Rabarivas, Palaj Vs. Mehsana. Mehsana 384 410 Gujarat. Pan : Bwgpr 0788 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 226(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

friend who had assured him that no adverse consequences would follow, and that on release of his bank account from attachment under section 226(3) of the Act, he genuinely believed that the matter stood resolved. The assessee further stated that it was only on receipt of a penalty notice ... requirements, or procedural formalities. The AR further explained that after the assessment order dated 02.12.2019, the assessee’s bank account was attached under section 226(3) of the Act. Upon making a representation, and with the intervention of the bank manager of the Central Bank of India, the attachment

SHREYANSH ANILKUMAR SHAH,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, NAVSARI

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

ITA 727/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.727/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 504, Rushabh Residency, Navsari, Income T Ax Office, Vs. Maneklal Road, Near Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Telephone Exchange, Navsari- 445 396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiqps 6441 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 26.07.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeal [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 27.10.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 By Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The It Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.32,53,637/- U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credits.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 226(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

MITHUN BABU PRASAD JAISWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 66/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mithun Babu Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Jaiswal, Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Ajvpb7975M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 144Section 226(3)

ITA No 66 of 2025 Mithun Babu Prasad Jaiswal आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

SUBHASH HANUMANTHAPPA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1325/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), and such appeal has been on 19-02-2020. In Form No. 35 filed by the assessee, it was stated that the date of service of the order was on 08-02-2020. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices fixing the case for hearing. However, there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 60 days without any petition for cond

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 226(3)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

RAVINANDA LANDMARKS UNIT 3,PUNE vs. ITO, WRD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1347/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 226(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

HRM INTERIORS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 295/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 226(3)Section 44A

know about the passing of the said impugned order only when his bank account was attached by the Revenue vide notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 28.01.2025. Upon coming to know of the same, the assessee immediately filed the appeal before

LINGOLE VENKATESWARA RAO,NARSAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

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

ITA 508/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.508/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Lingolu Venkateswara Vs. Income Tax Officer Rao, Narsapur (Ward-1) Pan: Adxpl7355H Bhimavaram (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Facts & Also The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 226(3)

ITA No 508 of 2024 Lingolu Venkateswara Rao Narsapur sआयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

SIDDIQ HUSSAIN DELVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2374/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri Phani Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R
Section 226(3)Section 250Section 253(5)

ITA No.2374/Bang/2024 Siddiq Husain Delvi, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

GOLDIE SUD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3475/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11 Goldie Sud, The Income Tax Officer, 191-192, Ward-24(1)(4) & 24(1)(1), Shaheed Bhagatsingh Chsl, Vs. Piramal Chamber, J.B. Nagar, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan : Amnps2413C (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No. 71/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3475/Mum/2025) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Goldie Sud, The Income Tax Officer, 191-192, Ward-24(1)(4) & 24(1)(1), Shaheed Bhagatsingh Chsl, Vs. Piramal Chamber, J.B. Nagar, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan : Amnps2413C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Goldie Sud (A‟S In Person) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Goldie Sud (A‟s in person)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

become infructuous and, therefore, is dismissed. As far as the assessee‟s submission in respect of the notice issued under section 226(3) of the Act, dt. 13-03-2020 is concerned, we find that the same relates to various assessment years including the assessment year 2009-10 and impugned

GOLDIE SUD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1735/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailgoldie Sud 191-192, Shaheed Bhagatsingh Chsl, J.B. Nagar, Andheri East Mumbai – 400059 Pan : Amnps2413C ............... Appellant V/S

For Appellant: Shri Goldie SudFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

adjudication afresh, the AO is also directed to reconsider the assessee’s submission in respect of the notice issued under section 226(3) of the Act. 10. To sum up, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, while the stay application is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3