← All Phrases

“Section 89(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 89Section 89(1)38 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 89(1) is ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT (343 ITR 89), cited in 144 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 89(1)

ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 89 · 2012 · Supreme Court
144
citing judgments

For calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, if total interest is netted off after adjusting interest paid and received, the 90% reduction specified in Explanation (baa) is not applicable.

Chelmsford Club v. CIT
243 ITR 89 · 2000 · Supreme Court
100
citing judgments

Income arising from mutual activities carried out by clubs or associations solely among their members is not assessable for income tax, as it does not constitute income from a trade or business due to the principle of mutuality.

CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd.
89 ITR 266 · 1973 · Supreme Court
83
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that income tax is levied on real income, not on hypothetical or notional accrual. For income to be taxable, it must genuinely accrue or be received, taking into account the realistic probability of its realization.

DCIT v. Panna Corporation
74 DTR 89 · 2012 · High Court
67
citing judgments

When unaccounted cash or on-money receipts are detected, only the profit element embedded in such receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount, and this profit requires estimation.

Dell International Services India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
89 Taxmann.com 44 · 2018 · ITAT
54
citing judgments

High turnover serves as a valid criterion for excluding a company from the list of comparable companies when determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in transfer pricing adjustments.

Krishnendu Chowdhury v. ITO
78 Taxmann.com 89 · 2017 · ITAT
46
citing judgments

An assessment notice issued under section 143(2) is invalid if it is not issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, even if issued by an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT). Such an invalid notice renders the subsequent assessment void.

DCIT v. S.G. Investments & Industries Ltd.
89 ITD 44 · 2004 · ITAT
29
citing judgments

All expenses connected with exempt income must be disallowed, irrespective of their nature (direct, indirect, fixed, variable, managerial, or financial).

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata v. M/s EIH Ltd.
89 Taxmann.com 417 · 2018 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Issuance of corporate guarantee by a parent company to a financial institution for lending money to a subsidiary, where the guarantee costs the parent nothing and does not impact its profits, income, losses, or assets, falls outside the scope of an international transaction under Section 92B(1) of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing Section 89(1)

Abdus Sukur Ahmed, Dhubri vs. ITO, Ward - Dhubri, Dhubri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 358/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Bhati, AR
Section 89(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `GAUHATI BENCH', GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2585/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2584 & 2585/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anil Bhagwan Turuk, V Income Tax Officer, 431/2329, Sant Tukaram S Ward-8(3), Pune. Nagar, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aappt2146K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 13.09.2022 & Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

during assessment proceedings. Substantial justice is more important than the procedural delay. Admittedly, Assessee had not filed the details of arrear salary and Section 89(1) claim during assessment proceedings, but for this mistake, Assessee should not be made to pay double tax. In these facts and circumstances

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2584/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2584 & 2585/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anil Bhagwan Turuk, V Income Tax Officer, 431/2329, Sant Tukaram S Ward-8(3), Pune. Nagar, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aappt2146K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 13.09.2022 & Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

during assessment proceedings. Substantial justice is more important than the procedural delay. Admittedly, Assessee had not filed the details of arrear salary and Section 89(1) claim during assessment proceedings, but for this mistake, Assessee should not be made to pay double tax. In these facts and circumstances

Sachin Bhaskar Kurandale, Pune vs. ITO, Wrd-13(2), Pune

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

ITA 1249/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1249/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Bhaskar Kurandale, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. A/P Annapur, Tal- Shirur, Dist.- Pune- 412218. Pan : Bchpk8331E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Denying The Relief U/S 89(1) Amounting To Rs. 1,56,662/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari (Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 89Section 89(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Krishana Shanwal, Hisar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmankrishana Shanwal, Vs. Dcit, Hisar Circle, House No.155, Sector 15A, Hisar. Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Btops9929Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kuldip Khera, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Order : 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit (A), Agra [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.08.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.52,49,050/- For The Ay 2017-18. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For The Following Issues :-

For Appellant: Shri Kuldip Khera, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 56Section 57Section 89Section 89(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Subramanian Kathirsen, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2025[19-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.765/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 56(2)(xi)Section 89Section 89(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग

Kailash Narayan Shridhar, Vadodara vs. Deputy CIT Circle 4(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 979/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 89(1)

total income of Rs.1,09,81,920/- wherein the assessee claimed refund of Rs.69,250/-, primarily on account of claim of relief under section 89(1) amounting to Rs.64,857. Subsequently, the Assistant Director of Income Tax rectified the order dated 07.12.2022 suo motu under section ... exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) to Rs.3,00,000/- relying on CBDT Notification dated 31.05.2002, and (v) alternatively, claim for relief under section 89(1) on the taxed portion of leave encashment exceeding Rs.3,00,000/-. The assessee also filed a detailed statement of facts and written submissions

Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh, Dabhoi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh Ito, Ward-4(1)(7) 5-Jantanagar Society Vs. Vadodara. O/S.Mahudi Bhagol At & Post Dabhoi Pan : Agtps 9809 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89(1)

leave encashment on retirement ought to be exempt under section 10(10AA)(i), or in the alternative, at least the relief under section 89(1) ought to have been allowed. 3 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions and legal provisions, dismissed the appeal. In doing

Kishorchandra Motilal Rajput, Bharuch vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89(1)

inflation and pay scale revisions. It was submitted that any taxed portion of leave encashment or other retiral benefits qualifies for relief under Section 89(1) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the intimation order dated 29.10.2021 making adjustment of Rs.11,63,550/-, the assessee filed appeal before

Bijender Singh Dhankhar, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panchkula

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 222/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

The Mandi Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. ITO, Ward, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 627/CHANDI/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

The Mandi Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. DCIT, Circle, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 626/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

The Mandi Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. ACIT, Circle, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1613/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Balkrishna Devraj Dubey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2876/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainbalkrishna Devraj Dubey Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(2)(1), R No.307, B Wing, Jai Shiv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Palace, Sneha Hospital Galli, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- Navghar Road, Bhayander 400 051 East, Maharashtra-401 105 Pan : Aexpd7533C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 89(1)

restricted the relief at Rs. 2,50,441/- as against relief of Rs.6,46,368/- claimed by the assessee under section 89(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer allowed the relief of Rs.6,46,368/- under section 89(1) of the Act in the computation sheet annexed ... order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by invoking provisions of section 154 of the Act and restricted the claim under section 89(1) of the Act at Rs.2,50,441/-. 4. It has been brought to my knowledge that the appeal against the order dated

Bhausaheb Kisan Magar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(2), Pune

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

ITA 1013/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 89(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1013/PUN/2025

Parna Vasudevaiah, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 456/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule-DR
Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89Section 89(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Maruti Keshavrao Didhore, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

advance salary, but profits in lieu of salary, as provided under section 17(3) of the Act, it is eligible for relief under section 89(1) of the Act.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Addl/JCIT(A). Before the Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee did not challenge

Arun Kumar Singh, Kanpur N vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(3), Kanpur Nagar

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

ITA 207/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year:2014-15 Arun Kumar Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 127/295, W Block Ward 2(2)(3) Keshav Nagar, Kanpur Kanpur Nagar Tan/Pan:Abhps8877K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 04 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2025, Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Retired Government Servant. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 23.07.2014, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.45,32,620/-, Claiming Relief Of Rs.2,95,058/- Under Section 89(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.45,32,620/-. While Processing The Return Of Income Of The Assessee, The Cpc Denied The Relief

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

assessee filed his return of income on 23.07.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.45,32,620/-, claiming relief of Rs.2,95,058/- under section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return under section 143(1 ... Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. A perusal of record shows that the relief claimed by the assessee under section 89(1) of the Act of Rs.2,95,058/- was denied by the CPC on the ground that the requisite Form 10E was not e-filed

Godavari Vijay Kulkarni (L/H of Late Vijay Kulkarni), Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1159/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak and Ms. Arrchena ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 33(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Vinaykumar Ram Kamal Pandey, Bharuch Gujarat vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1482/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250(5)Section 89(1)

issued by CBDT effective 01.04.1998. 5. Alternatively, the Learned CIT (A) erred in not allowing the admissible amount of relief under the Section 89(1) on the taxed amount exceeding Rs.300000/-. 6. Section 250(5) Addition alteration of ground of appeal, your appellant craves leave to add amend alter