“Section 139(9)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(9)193 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(9) is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (30 SOT 374), cited in 201 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(9)

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT

201

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court

179

citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

DDIT v. Savvis Communication Corporation

69 Taxmann.com 106 · 2016 · ITAT

107

citing judgments

Payments for web hosting services, including data back-up, maintenance, security, and uninterrupted services, are not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, as they do not constitute 'consideration for use of, or right to use, scientific equipment'.

CIT v. Merchant

280 CTR 381 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act are distinct, meaning they cannot be read together to determine an assessee's entitlement to a deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions.

42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

139 Taxmann.com 448 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

The claim for Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied solely due to a delay in filing Form-67, as the requirement for filing Form-67 under Rule 128(9) is considered directory and not mandatory. The provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) prevail over the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. ADIT

203 Taxmann 554 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

A fixed place of business constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(1) of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement only if the premises are actually at the disposal of the foreign enterprise, thereby satisfying the crucial 'disposal test', and it is through this fixed place that the foreign enterprise carries on its business, wholly or partly.

CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari

92 ITR 9 · 1973 · High Court

citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital used to acquire an asset, paid year after year until the date of sale, must be capitalized and included in the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains.

Dell International Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT Manu/APJ2002/

305 ITR 37 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, introducing Explanations 5 and 6 regarding royalty income, do not automatically apply to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) if the DTAAs themselves have not been correspondingly amended.

Judgments citing Section 139(9)

Madhyam, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- Exemp 1(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1456/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154

Income Tax Portal. It was contended that the Ld. AO-CPC, at most, had treated the said ITR as a defective ITR under section 139(9) of the Act if the audit report was not available online along with the ITR on the Income Tax Portal and the assessee should

Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. The ACIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT a

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Kapoor Industries Limited, Mehrauli vs. CPC, Bengaluru(Currently Assessed With DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4498/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalkapoor Industries Limited Vs Cpc, Bengluru 29A-2/1, Desu Road, Mehrauli Delhi-110030 Pan-Aaeck6613N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv., Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Shri Mirza Baig, Ca & Shri Sarthak, Ca Respondent By Adjournment By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 132Section 132BSection 143(1)Section 234Section 250

ITA No. 4498/Del/2025 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

P D Memorial Trust, Delhi vs. Dlc-Ca-2, Range- 48, Ward Exemp 2(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3784/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

claim made by the appellant that the action of CPC in recomputing the returned income without giving any intimation/deficiency 1 P.D.Memorial Trust under section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, unjust and against the facts of the case 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income ... Income tax Act. The appellant has claimed in ground 1 that CPC in recomputing the returned income without giving any intimation/deficiency under section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, unjust and against the facts of the case The letter of CPC is still available

Income Tax Officer, Sanjay Place Agra vs. Gunjan Gupta Batra, Noida

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

ITA 290/AGR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhincome Tax Officer, Vs. Gunjan Gupta Batra, Ward 2 (1), Agra. A - 45, Sector 26, Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Abupg5419J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

that the return of income filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16 was 5 an invalid return and in terms of section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an invalid return is treated as if the assessee had failed to furnish the return of income

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

grounds: “1. That despite having held that the Income Tax Return filed by the appellant was an invalid return as per provisions of section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in affirming the Intimation dated 12.06.2018 issued ... 127/Gty/2023 “1. That despite having held that the Income Tax Return filed by the appellant was an invalid return as per provisions of section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in affirming the Intimation dated 28.02.2019 issued

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/GTY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

Dewas Jila Network of Pipul Living With H I V Aids Society, Dewas vs. Additional/Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissionner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 146/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 272A(2)(e)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Nararshabh Sharma, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 7(3), Pune, Aayakar Sadan Pune

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

ITA 1530/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia-JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140BSection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80T

payment of tax as required u/s. 140B was not made and return was defective return as per clause (ca) of explanation to section 139(9) of the Act. 2 ITA.No.1530/PUN./2025 (Nararshabh Sharma) 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual carrying on the business ... holding the return as invalid and to tax the assessee for the correct income, however, Ld.CIT(A) referring to the provision to section 139(9) of the Act observed that Ld.AO is empowered to condone the delay and treat the return as valid return even after the lapse of permitted

Rajmangal Co-Operative Dairy Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Solapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1361/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1360 & 1361/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Rajmangal Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Dairy Limited, Solapur. Rajmangal Gat No.72/2, Khadakewadi Devalali Karmala, Solapur- 411011. Pan : Aaear0270N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 10.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1360/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2022-23 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 194O

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Rajmangal Co-Operative Dairy Limited, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Solapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1360/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 194O

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Sudhir Appukuttan Panikassery, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 3, Kalyan

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

ITA 3558/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Parag VyasFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 140ASection 140B(4)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234FSection 250Section 89

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 570/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Krishnamurthy, Vs. Dcit, Represented By His Lr Smt. Nagarathnamma, Circle –2(1), No.152, 2Nd Floor, Hanuman Chambers, Bangalore. 7Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018. Pan : Admpk 2463 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 292B

assessee. The return filed by the assessee is defective. The AO ought to have issued defective notice as per the provision of section 139(9) of the Act read with explanation aa omitted by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 which is as under: “the tax together with interest ... issue notice to cure the defect. If he considers to issue notice to cure the defect there is no mandatory provision as per section 139(9) of the Act and he also clarified that the AO has not issued any defective notice. In the section the word has been used

Janki Wind Farm Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1000/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

aarHe ehAs aH, TeAATATS ATAhts ‘SMC’ aeTATATA! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS.SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE

The Vedic Culture Centre, Delhi vs. ITO Ward(Exemption)-2(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 780/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.780/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 The Vedic Culture Centre Income Tax Officer, 7, Institutional Area Ward (Exemption)-2(3), Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3 Vs. Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaatt0811G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: d. determining taxable income at Rs.75,60,590/-against NIL return

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

Income Tax Portal. It was contended that the AO, at most, had treated the said ITR as a defective ITR under section 139(9) of the Act if the audit report was not available online along with the ITR on the Income Tax Portal and the assessee should have been

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

Private Limited] filed its return of income for the AY 2018-19 claiming loss of ₹.31,28,98,436/- under 2 I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/24 section 139(9) of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason to verify the low income in comparison to high

Koti Narasimha Srinivas Vukkurthi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 333/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.333/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(1) Koti Narasimha Srinivas Vukkurthi C/O. M.V. Prasad, Ca Income Tax Office First Floor Cr Buildings, Kannavari Thota Opposite Prasad & Co. Contractors Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh D.No. 6-3-871 Snehalata, Greenlands Road Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500016 [Pan: Admpv6385Q] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194QSection 199

return of income for the A.Y. 2022-23 on 06.09.2022 admitting a total income of Rs.10,51,480/-. A defective notice under section 139(9) of the Act dated 11.11.2022 was issued to the assessee by the Income tax Authority, CPC, Bangalore. In response, assessee has submitted that the Gross

Sanatan Warehouse, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 745/IND/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2022-23 Sanatan Warehouse, Cit(A) 162, Modi Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Zone-Ii, Mp Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aegfs0245D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2025

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 250

That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in treating the return of income filed by the appellant as invalid under Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without duly considering all defects, identified by the department, were fully rectified by the appellant within the stipulated timeframe ... reviewed before submission. The alleged defect, if any, is either non-existent or has already been rectified in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act. 8. That the appellant prays for appropriate relief by setting aside the impugned order treating the return as invalid

Vellala Krishnanand Arunkumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 360/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Shree Raksha, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

section Page 2 of 4 44AD of the Act claiming TDS of Rs.9,39,803/-. During the processing, the CPC issued notice under section 139(9) of the Act, observing as under: 3. The total gross receipts is Rs.5,10,96,882/- including GST. The assessee had not maintained books

Chate Tutorials Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Nashik

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 480/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya NavandarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL