“notice under section 148”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 1487,377 judgments

The decision most relied on for notice under section 148 is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on notice under section 148

CIT v. Kabul Chawla

380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court

3,235

citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society

397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court

1,589

citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

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.

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

469 ITR 46 · 2024 · Supreme Court

713

citing judgments

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

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.

Tin Box Company v. CIT

249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court

624

citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

Judgments citing notice under section 148

Emerald Alchymicus Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1424/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Sri Pankaj Soni, Adv a/w Ms. S. Shanmugam,ARsFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 270ASection 68Section 69A

appellant ex-parte, without examining that the reopening of the assessment proceeding in case of the appellant under section 147, issuing notice under section 148, and passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act is invalid, without jurisdiction, perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 3. That ... appellant ex-parte, without examining that the reopening of the assessment proceeding in case of the appellant under section 147, issuing notice under section 148, and passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act is invalid, without jurisdiction, perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 3. That

Emerald Alchymicus Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1423/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Sri Pankaj Soni, Adv a/w Ms. S. Shanmugam,ARsFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 270ASection 68Section 69A

Emerald Alchymicus Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1422/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Sri Pankaj Soni, Adv a/w Ms. S. Shanmugam,ARsFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 270ASection 68Section 69A

Rakesh Mulchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1347/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Blelt.A. No. 1347/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

issued up to March 31, 2000. Therefore, a valid return of income was pending as on March 15, 2000. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on March 15, 2000 when a valid return under section 139(4) was pending. In this case, the return was filed

Suresh Babulal Agrawal, Mumbai vs. The ITO Ward-34(3)(7), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6704/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Petitioner were assessed and accepted, and the claim under Section 80-IA was revised. 8. The petitioner was issued the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 30 March 2021, seeking to reopen the assessment. In compliance with the notice, the petitioner filed a return

Dy. Commmissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Prasad Shetty, Sion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

case of Rajeev Bansal is reproduced hereunder:- 108. The Income-tax Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for issuing reassessment notices under section 148, which fell for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, till 30 June 2021. All the reassessment notices under challenge ... with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date

Mr Rahat Mohammed Riyazuddin Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5291/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Advocate and Shri Akshay Pawar, ARFor Respondent: R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime has to be tested on the date of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Even if TOLA is read into the Income Tax Act, the time limits for completion or compliance of actions ... extended till 30 June 2021. However, the notices under Section 148 of the new regime were issued by the Revenue on 29/07/2022. The period is beyond the extended time limits stipulated under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. Therefore, the case is beyond the period of 3 years. TOLA

Sadik Daudbhai Nandoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 889/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

bank account. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year and accordingly notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Ms Shree Bhawani Mills, Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed while the Cross

ITA 332/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Gandhi Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Gandhi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 7.09.2023 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 30.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 46A

partner Smt. Shakuntla Devi, and not to the appellant firm. Thereafter, it filed another submission where it questioned the validity of the notice under section 148 on the grounds that the notice had not been signed by any authority. It was further submitted that the fact of the entire auction ... that at that point of time, the amendments to the act that provided for seeking the explanation of the assessee before issuance of notice under section 148, had not yet come into play, we see no infirmity in the initiation of the assessment proceedings or the approval given

Dolly Jindal, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 327/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dolly Jindal V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 107, Beverly Park Apartment Lucknow New Hyderabad Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afmpj5089D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 147Section 148

year under consideration, but no return of income had been filed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, in response to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), the assessee had furnished computation of income, copy of bank statement, capital account

Vishnu Subhash Agarwal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 2881/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Court cited (supra) which reads as under: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April ... TOLA apply “notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act.” Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act; d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation

V Selvaraj and Co, Puducherry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry

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

ITA 576/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.576/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Selvaraj & Co., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 6, Ii Cross, Ganapathy Nagar, Income Tax, Muthialpet, Puducherry 605 003. Puducherry. [Pan:Aagfv6195F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Or Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. The Assessee Called Absent & Set Exparte. We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 68

return of income filed for the assessment year under consideration. Basing on the information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and in response to which, the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income

Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1, Salem

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

ITA 567/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Maruthi Vilas, North Street, Ward 1(3), High School Road, Velur, Salem. Namakkal 638 182. [Pan:Aysps6739A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 210 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

also as per TDS statement, the assessee has received ₹.1,59,893/- from the ETA Engineering Private Limited. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but no 3 I.T.A. No.567/Chny/25 compliance was made by the assessee in filing the return

Maria Estibeiro, Panaji vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

The appeal stands ALLOWED

ITA 34/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)

having submitted to the jurisdiction pursuant to the impugned notice, the provisions of section 292B would not be attracted and hence, the notice under section 148 has to be treated as invalid. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 28 Maria Estibeiro L/H of Jacintodas Estibeiro Vs DCIT, Panaji Goa ITA No.034/PAN/2024

Anup Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Patna

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

ITA 401/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 401/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Anup Kumar,……………..………….…….....……Appellant Sultanpur, Danapur, Patna-801503, Bihar [Pan:Cdupk6764J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-6(4), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

development of inherited piece of land on 01.03.2016 corresponding to A.Y. 2016-17. At the time of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act, which was not served upon the assessee. Notices under section 142(1) was issued but there was no evidence that

Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

computation of total income and form 26 AS is available on paper book page No 1 to 9. Subsequently the learned AO issued notice under section 148 on 29.03.2019. The assessment has been completed under section 144 on 05.12.2019 determining total income at Rs, 24,79,000/- as against retuned ... assessee. The Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quash the assessment order on this ground alone In the case of the assessee notice under section 148 was issued on 29.03.2019. The learned AO was suo moto required to furnish to the assessee a copy of the reasons recorded for issuance

Pratima Panwar, Jaipur vs. I.T.O, Ward 3(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/JPR/2025[A.Y 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

under sec. 68 for cash deposited in bank, merely because assessee had declared more income in his return filed in response to notice under section 148 is not sustainable. (P.B. page 100 to 108) Joginder Kaur Vs. ITO (2024) 231 TTJ (Ars) 320: Addition under sec. 69A. (7) Cash deposits

Vinod Kumar Chugh, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 274

well versed with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10 Vinod Kumar Chugh vs. ITO 3. The appellant was issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 30/03/2017 by Ld. AO for charging income tax on the escaped assessed income within the meaning of section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Vimal Parwal, Jaipur

In the result , the appeal for the Assessment Year 2016-17 filed by the Revenue and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee for the same assessment year are also dismissed

ITA 1231/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 153CSection 250

person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to without giving any finding that issuance of notice under section 148 was incorrect. Thus, the CIT (A) is not justified in quashing notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. (iii) Whether the Learned ... erred in overturning the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the precedent set by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) V/s. M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Private Limited

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Vimal Parwal, Jaipur

In the result , the appeal for the Assessment Year 2016-17 filed by the Revenue and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee for the same assessment year are also dismissed

ITA 1230/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 153CSection 250