“reassessment proceedings”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1518,150 judgments

The decision most relied on for reassessment proceedings is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reassessment proceedings

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO

259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court

1,349

citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,030

citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO

236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court

862

citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court

721

citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court

471

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

336 ITR 136 · 2011 · High Court

398

citing judgments

In reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, the Assessing Officer can assess other income not specified in the original notice if the initial ground for reopening assessment is found to be valid. However, if the income for which the assessment was initially reopened is found not to have escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to assess any other income.

Judgments citing reassessment proceedings

Mahavir Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalmahavir Pukhraj Jain Vs. Dcit, Circle – 42(1)(1) Flat No. 603/B, Manan Kautilya Bhawan, Apartment, New Link Road, Aenue -3, Near Videsh Dahisar East, Mumbai – Bhavan, G-Block, Bkc 400068. Bandra (E) – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Adepj8540R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

does not acquire jurisdiction. 13. Therefore considering the entire facts and circumstances as discussed by us above, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings. Since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case. Accordingly, this ground raised

Balajee Infratech & Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the following recorded reasons, which were communicated to the assessee during the reassessment proceedings: REASONS FOR REOPENING THE CASE M/B. BALAJI INFRATECH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD FOR A.Y.2012-13 4 Balajee Infratech & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., “In this case, assessment has been ... deduction of tax at source and reflected in its books of account, thereby dispelling any inference of concealment or unaccounted outgo. 7. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 133(6) to Mr. Arun Gajanan Adhikari on 25th October 2017, seeking details such

Motibhai Lallubhai Desai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5588/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Mona Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151

find that Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 151 of the amended Act clearly specify the authority whose approval can trigger the reassessment proceedings. Thus, if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority who would grant approval for initiation ... reassessment proceedings will be the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director. However, if more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year have elapsed, the specified authority for according approval for the reassessment shall be the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. ITO Ward3(1), Income Tax Office Azamgarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 147 to section 151 existing on the statute books upto 31.3.2021. 1.6 That in the instant case the initiation of the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and action of authorities was totally arbitrary as the same proceeds on non-existent

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

Gunjan Rungta, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

appellant was merely for the purposes of 'roving and fishing inquiry', which is wholly erroneous and bad in law. 4. BECAUSE the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act by the ACIT, Circle - II, Gorakhpur as also conclusion thereof by the ITO vide assessment order dated

Abid Mustafa Khan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 502/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

recorded for reopening mention cash deposits of Rs. 92,20,000/-whereas the addition made is only ₹46,95,000/-. The inconsistency renders the reassessment proceedings untenable and arbitrary. 04. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in issuing the notice under section 148A ... Chief Commissioner of Income Tax) as required under section 151, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The said procedural lapse vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings and renders the notice and consequential order bad in law and void ab initio." 05. Learned AO erred in making addition u/s. 69A though

No 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 455/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.455/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) No. 368 Kolakaluru Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Tenali. Limited, Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The 2 No. 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

21/03/2022 did not provide for clear 7 days of time to the appellant and hence the same is invalid and consequently the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 2. The notice dated 06/04/2022 issued Us. 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the approval was granted ... without obtaining the approval of the specified authority u/s. 151(ii) of the Act, we find substance in the same. Admittedly, the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act had been revamped vide the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The substituted Sections 147 to 159 and Section

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

truly and fully disclosing the material necessary for assessment, more particularly when all the details were filed alongwith return of income. Thus, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and void ab initio. 3.3 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in justifying the reopening of assessment without establishing ... nexus between material and belief. (f) The reasons referred must show application of mind by the assessing officer. The validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings has to be judged with regard to the material available with the officer at the point of time of issue of notice

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cirlce-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 974/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

confirming the action of the AO by erroneously noting that the appellant has offered two different taxable total income during the course of reassessment proceedings and in ignoring the fact that the income as per the Return was Rs.97,04,424/- on the pretext that the Return of income

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 973/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

Heena Rameshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 77/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 68

limitation period laid down in Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessments. The entire reassessment proceedings are void and deserve to be quashed. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities ... 77/Ahd/2025 Heena Rameshbhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 3– 7.1 Once the notice itself is time-barred, the entire reassessment proceeding is rendered invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessments framed in both years are liable to be quashed. 7.2 Accordingly, we allow the appeals

Heena Rameshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 76/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), 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

from various parties and details of loan taken during the relevant assessment year has already been submitted by the assessee at the time of reassessment proceedings. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee has given complete chart regarding the loan taken from the parties such as PAN cards ... against the loan transaction of the assessee. 6.2.14. It is observed from the submissions of the assessee that the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings, had furnished audited Tax audit report showing the receipt and payment of the said loan etc. Hence, it is palpable that

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), 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

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

Satish Khanna, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:415/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

cogent “reason to believe” based on credible and tangible material, and initiating proceedings based on unverified information renders the notice invalid and the entire reassessment proceedings void. 5. Without Prejudice, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law by enhancing the scope of Assessment to the availability, form, and liquidation ... documents. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 23.11.2021 admitting a total income of Rs.30,09,818/-. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.3,76,45,045/- and in response assessee submitted a reply

Late Sh Sethuraman Through Legal Heir Sh S Nishaanth, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by legal representative of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2615/CHNY/2024[2015-116]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-116

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2615/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Late Shri Sethuraman The Assistant (Rep. By Legal Heir Commissioner Of Income Shri S. Nishaanth), Vs. Tax, O 9/12, Subbarayan Street, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Abhps 3001R (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 14.08.2024 Arising Out Of The Order Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act') For The Assessment Year 2015-16 (Hereinafter The "Ay").

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

Vipin Walia (supra) was followed in the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rasid Lala, (supra) in which, the reassessment proceedings were initiated against the dead person, that too, after a long delay. The Court pointed out that even if the provisions of Section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

that this sum has been omitted to be claimed in the return of income has been amply demonstrated by the Assessee. Even in the reassessment proceedings the AO has no answer to the claim of the Assessee in this regard and has merely observed in his order that there

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2971/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)