← All Phrases

“Section 253(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 253Section 253(1)313 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 253(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 253(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr
398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court
291
citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others
118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

PCIT v. IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd.
84 Taxmann.com 186 · 2017 · High Court
255
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not permissible where the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. A CBDT Circular cannot override the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D to mandate such a disallowance.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.
153 ITR 596 · 1985 · High Court
171
citing judgments

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others
167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

Judgments citing Section 253(1)

Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souhard Sahakari Sangh Nyt Examba, Examba, Chikodi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nippani, Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souharda Sangh Niyamit Examba, Chikodi, Belgavi-591244 Pan:Aabas2730D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Commscope India Private Limited, Panaji vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED as withdrawn

ITA 161/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. Ita No. 161/Pan/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Commscope India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. N2, Phase-Iv, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa. Pan : Aabca8820A . . . . . . . Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ In Short] Challenges The Order Dt. 31/03/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-6, Mumbai [‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short] Which In Turn Arisen From The Order Of Intimation Dt. 17/10/2022 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Ao/Cpc’ In Short] For Assessment Year 2021-22 [‘Ay’ In Short]

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Bandekar Brothers Private Limited, Vasco Goa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 199/PAN/2024[A Y 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Nov 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Sir Chhotu Ram Educational Trust, Kanjhawala vs. ITO Exemption, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 4340/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the Tribunal.

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 253Section 253(1)

described. Ld. CIT DR drew our attention to the provisions of Section 253 of the Act and stated that the provision of Section 253(1) of the Act nowhere narrated that the appeal against the order passed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act can be challenged before the Tribunal

Swapnil Prabhakar Naik, Khandola Marcela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Panaji, Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 121/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 5ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Ashu Ashok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1046/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

Such an issue neither emanates from the order of the CIT(A) nor falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the ITA T under section 253(1) of the Act.  Documents like the AO's letter seeking approval and the JCIT's approval letter are additional evidences within the meaning

Ashu Ashok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1045/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

Such an issue neither emanates from the order of the CIT(A) nor falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the ITA T under section 253(1) of the Act.  Documents like the AO's letter seeking approval and the JCIT's approval letter are additional evidences within the meaning

Ashu Asok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

Such an issue neither emanates from the order of the CIT(A) nor falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the ITA T under section 253(1) of the Act.  Documents like the AO's letter seeking approval and the JCIT's approval letter are additional evidences within the meaning

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1885/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NCR Global Solutions Limited ("Appellant) respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"), against final assessment order dated 02:01 2025 ("Impugned Order) issued under section 143(3) read with

Amar Chand Gangwal, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Guwahati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 144/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Your Honour Under Section 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Challenging The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Said Act By The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Noida For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. I Respectfully Submit That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Prescribed Time Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Difficulties Beyond My Control. The Appeal Was Due To Be Filed On Or Before 28.02.2025. There Is Delay Of 95 Days Only In Filing Of The Appeal. 3. I Am Aged About 81 Years & I Am Not Conversant With E-Mail, Digital / Internet

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 270ASection 5

days which has been requested to be condoned as under: “1. The above appeal has been filed before your honour under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 17.12.2024 passed under section 250 of the said Act by the Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income

Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 313/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S Srithik Ispat Private Limited, Sanguem vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED as withdrawn

ITA 278/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. Ita No. 278/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 03, Sangam Industrial Estate, Sanguem, Goa-403704. Pan : Aaics1765P . . . . . . . Appellant बिधम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Madesha [‘Ld. Dr’] सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ In Short] Challenging The Order Dt. 30/08/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Appeals, Panaji-1, Goa [‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short] U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen From The Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Panaji [‘Ld. Ao’ In Short] Anent To Assessment Year 2015-16 [‘Ay’ In Short]

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Madesha [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 254

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Vimal Kumar Attrey, Sirsa vs. ITO, Ward -1, Sirsa

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1089/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1089/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vimal Kumar Attrey, The Ito, बनाम Srs/B-15/076, Ward 1, Street No. 2, Sirsa Vs. Old Court Colony, Sirsa Haryana 125055 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaopa0288L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kartik Garg, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13-10-2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.11.2023 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Shri. Kartik Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Catherine Jean Chandhok, Delhi vs. PCIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3954/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 253(1)

Catherine Jean Chandhok Vs. The P.C.I.T. 119(2)(b) of the Act is not appealable order before the ITAT as per section 253(1) of the Act. 4. Section 119 of the IT Act empowers the Central Board of Taxes (CBDT) to issue instructions to lower levels of authority

Sp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6575/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited 404, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aaqcs7983P ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/w Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe & Shri Aditya M. Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 253(1)Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

following grounds: – “Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253(1) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) rwis

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 2259/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

Taxation) - 4(2)(1), Mumbai ('the AO') which was received by the Appellant on 21 July 2022. The said appeal is filed under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1615/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

Taxation) - 4(2)(1), Mumbai ('the AO') which was received by the Appellant on 21 July 2022. The said appeal is filed under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without

Shri Kalmeshwar Co-Op Credit Society, Belgaum vs. Assessing Officer, National E Limited Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 164/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 164/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Kalmeshwar Co-Op Credit Society Limited. 396/4 Main Road, Lbs Nagar, Kangralli, Belagavi-590010. Pan : Aaajs2317N . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Santosh Kumar Latthe [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Amraram Gomaji Chowdhary, Navelim vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Margao

ITA 117/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 117/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Amraram Gomaji Chowdhary 457/C, Aquem Baixo, Firgulem, Navelim, Goa-403707. Pan : Aqjpc0124C . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-(1), Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pradeep Kulkarni [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Manju Thakur [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074431239(1) Dt. 12/03/2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/02/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Pradeep Kulkarni [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Manju Thakur [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Mr. Agnelo Socorro Joaquim Viegas, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Panaji

ITA 69/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 069/Pan/2025 & Sa 06/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Agnelo Socorro Joaquim Viegas H. No. 373, Galliwaddo, Taleigao, Caranzalem, Goa-403002. Pan : Akapv9049C . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Sanket Deshmukh[‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073026397(1) Dt. 07/02/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Ahmedabad [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sanket Deshmukh[‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 5ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI