← All Phrases

“Section 6(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 6Section 6(1)97 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 6(1) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 6(1)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

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.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Judgments citing Section 6(1)

Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

para 7.3.8 of the order u/s 245D(4) the Settlement Commission has unequivocally held that the assessee is a resident as per section 6[1](c). 12. According to the Assessing Officer, had the search not taken place then his earning from the foreign country would not have been detected ... under Section 153A. However, the assessee has not done so. Further, the assessee was a resident in A.Y. 2010-11, in accordance with Section 6(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was employed by an Indian company as well as a UAE company of the SAVA Group. These

DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

para 7.3.8 of the order u/s 245D(4) the Settlement Commission has unequivocally held that the assessee is a resident as per section 6[1](c). 12. According to the Assessing Officer, had the search not taken place then his earning from the foreign country would not have been detected ... under Section 153A. However, the assessee has not done so. Further, the assessee was a resident in A.Y. 2010-11, in accordance with Section 6(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was employed by an Indian company as well as a UAE company of the SAVA Group. These

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

case. The Appellant was having the status “Non Resident” in the relevant Assessment year in view of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however the Ld. CIT (A) has incorrectly mentioned that the explanation (1) is not applicable in the case ... less than 182 days and therefore, has enjoyed the status of ‘non-resident’ in terms of clause (b) of explanation 1 to section 6(1)( c ) the Income Tax Act, however, the AO has held the assessee as ‘resident’. Ld.AR also submits that during the course of assessment proceedings

Mitesh Vijay Gulati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4227/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 6(1)Section 6(1)(c)

previous year under scrutiny assessment proceeding for purposes other than employment. B. It is germane to reproduce here the relevant extract of section 6(1) of the Act which reads as under: For the purposes of this Act,- (1) An individual is said to be resident in India ... words "sixty days", occurring therein, the words "one hundred and eighty-two days" had been substituted; C. Interpretations of the provisions contained in section 6(1)(c) of the Act vis-à-vis facts of the case of the assessee: As per the Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1

Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (1) Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1428/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, 415/2 A, Shrine Complex, Somvar Peth, Pune -411011 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Pune Pan : Aaaah2281D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Deepak S. Sasar Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 05-11-2024 15-01-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- *1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.8,84,993/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P (2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Interest Income Earned From Deposit With Pdcc Bank. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P (2) (D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S.80P Of Commission Receipts Of Rs.53,52,723/- After Deducting The Salary Expenses Of Rs.3,00,202/- From The Total Commission Receipts Of Rs.56,52,925/-. Being The Same Income Is Received From The Mseb On Account Of Running Cash Counter For Mseb Bill Payments & The Same Is Treated As Income From Other Sources. 4. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

behalf of the Department. Section 5(b) defines "banking" to mean acceptance of deposits for the purpose of lending or investment whereas, Section 6(1) states, inter alia, that in addition to the business of banking, a banking company may engage in the following forms of business as enumerated ... Section 6(1)(a) to (o). Therefore, there is a clear dichotomy between the business of banking and other forms of business. To take an example, under Section 6(1)(a) providing of safe deposit vaults to the customer is mentioned. In the case of Mehsana District Central Co-operative

Mridula Jha Jena, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward, 3(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4844/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra/Ms. SnigdhaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 270ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)(ii)

India for only 108 days during the previous year relevant to AY 2013-14. As per the provisions of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1) of the Act if an Individual being a citizen of India, leaves India in any previous year for the purposes of employment outside India

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

Thus, he claimed that his residential status during A.Y 2018-19 was Resident only, as per provisions of section 6(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. However, subsequently, in his response dated 19.03.2021, the assessee claimed that residential status for A.Y 2018-19 as Non-resident. Ld. AO noted ... India, since the Humble Appellant was stayed for Employment outside India for more than 182 days as per Explanation 1 to Section 6(1) C. That the Humble Appellant received Salary From Saket Gems (HK) Ltd to look after the work of their business in Hong Kong:- 1. The Humble

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation ) Ward Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Vijayakumar Murthy, Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1588/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1588/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vijayakumar Murthy, International Taxation, 110/3, Mudaliyaar Thottam, Ward, Vinayagar Koil Street-1, Coimbatore 641 018. Modapalayam Railway Colony, Tamil Nadu 638 002. [Pan: Aexpv 8817R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel (Virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 10(14)(i)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5Section 6(1)Section 69ASection 90

relevant to the assessment year 2020-21. Therefore, he qualified as a Non Resident in India during the previous year 2019-20 under section 6(1) of the Act. Thus, the assessee qualifies as a tax resident of for the previous year 2019-20. Regarding assessment proceedings, the National

Manojkumar Madangopal Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1105/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 112(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 6Section 6(1)(c)

Appellent was a resident of India under section 6 of the Act. The learned CITIA) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 6(1)(c) along with Explanation (s) were applicable as the Assessee had taken up employment with ignite Consulting, FZC, a UAE based company during

DCIT(CC)-2(4), Mumbai vs. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3474/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 35Section 80ISection 92B

statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds

DCIT(CC)-2(4), Mumbai vs. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3473/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 35Section 80ISection 92B

statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds

DCIT(CC)-2(4), Mumbai. vs. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3472/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 35Section 80ISection 92B

statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CC)-2(4), Mumbai vs. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3471/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 35Section 80ISection 92B

statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds

Vamsi Krishna Ayyalasomayajula, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1469/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Vaidehi G., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 6(1)Section 90(2)

thus granted.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a resident and ordinarily resident as per section 6(1) r.w.s. 6(6) of the Act and for the subject assessment year the assessee was a resident in India as per the provisions of Article

Raghav Agarwalla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4258/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Raghav Agarwalla, Ito, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), 13/14, Buckley Court, Room No. 1817, 18Th Floor, Air India Vs. 5 Woodhouse Road, Colaba, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Ahbpa 8174 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal/Akhilesh Deshmukh
Section 1Section 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant is a fact that the Appellant is a Non Resident of India as per section 6(1)(a) of the Act as he was in India Resident of India as per section 6(1 ... India Resident of India as per section 6(1)(a) of the Act as he was in India during the Previous Year relevant to impugned Assessment Year for less during the Previous Year relevant to impugned Assessment Year for less during the Previous Year relevant to impugned Assessment Year

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

ITA 737/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)

held that the locker rent received by the assessee was a part of ordinary banking business as shown by section 6(1)(a) of the Banking (Regulation) Act, 1949 and, therefore, the income derived by the assessee bank from hiring out of safe deposit vaults was income from banking business

Dheeraj Tolaram Talreja, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3359/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Dheeraj Tolaram Income Tax Officer, Talreja International Taxation, A – 605, Ward 4(1)(1) Oberoi Esquire, Air India Building, Oberoi Garden City, Nariman Point, Vs. Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400021. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Adopt3185J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sant - Addl. CIT D.R
Section 139(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 5(1)Section 6(1)Section 6(6)Section 64

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN

Mr. Chiragkumar Nandalal Makadia, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 250Section 6(1)Section 90

year 2018-19 exceeded 729 days. Accordingly, in Chiragkumar Nandalal Makadia Vs. ITO Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 3 of 6 view of section 6(1) of the Act, the assessee states that the assessee qualifies as a “resident and ordinarily resident” in India for AY 2019-20. The assessee

Alan Moses Mozes, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(4)(ii)Section 5(2)Section 6(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Srisadanand Souharda Pattina Sahakari Niyamit Talikoti, Bijapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 945/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba, R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 6(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND