← All Phrases

“Section 23(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(5)87 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 23(5) is CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (354 ITR 180), cited in 208 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 23(5)

CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.
354 ITR 180 · 2013 · High Court
208
citing judgments

Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold stock-in-trade flats/shops held by a real estate developer can be assessed under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income from house property. This approach was followed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on this decision.

CIT v. Tip Top Typography
368 ITR 330 · 2014 · High Court
161
citing judgments

For computing income from house property, the Annual Letting Value (ALV) cannot be arbitrarily estimated by the Assessing Officer, but must be determined based on the Municipal ratable value of the property.

CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.
296 ITR 661 · 2008 · High Court
129
citing judgments

Income from unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder or developer is assessable as business income, not income from house property, for assessment years prior to the insertion of Section 23(5) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT
23 ITR 230 · 1953 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

Income taxability depends on the real nature of the receipt and actual or constructive receipt of income, not merely on book entries. An amount is only "deemed to be received" if explicitly provided by the Income Tax Act, not by an assessee's unilateral intention.

CIT v. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd.
352 ITR 583 · 2013 · High Court
80
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A for interest expenditure is not justified if an assessee uses its own interest-free funds for investments generating exempt income, and borrowed funds are entirely utilized for business purposes, without evidence of diversion to earn tax-free income.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Meerut v. Canara Bank Securities Ltd.
114 Taxmann.com 545 · 2020 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Property held as stock-in-trade is not assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 23). An Assessing Officer's decision not to tax such income, when supported by inquiry, typically cannot be considered erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263.

CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises
377 ITR 165 · 2015 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Rental income from unsold property held by a real-estate developer is assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as 'Business Income'. The treatment in books of account as stock-in-trade does not alter the income's character for tax purposes.

Judgments citing Section 23(5)

Starshine Land Developers Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-5, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

obtained details and therefore it should be presumed that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind. He further submitted that the amendment to section 23(5) has been brought on the statute only w.e.f. AY 2018-19 and therefore no notional ALV could be brought to tax for the year ... reopening but about lack of enquiry in the reassessment proceedings. Likewise, the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR on the merits of section 23(5) pertain to taxability of notional rent and the same are left open to be examined by the Assessing Officer in the set aside proceedings

Tncp LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

ITA 2603/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, 126, Kg House, Arts College Road, Coimbatore - 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.Τ. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: आदेश /Order : 20.11.2025 : 11.02.2026 These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)') For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Both Dated 09.07.2025 Against The Assessment Orders Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.143 (3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act') Dated 20.09.2021 & The Penalty Order Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.270A Of The Act Dated 15.01.2022 Respectively. :-2-:

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Tncd LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2602/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

rejected by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) who had held as follows: “Grounds No. 4 to 8: These grounds concern the application of section 23(5) of the Act, under which the Assessing Officer deemed rental income from unsold flats classified by the appellant as stock-in-trade or work-in-progress ... from completion timelines and cost metrics, treated the units as complete and available for use beyond the one-year time frame envisaged in section 23(5). This interpretation, although based on reasonable presumption, is also not based on site-level confirmations or physical inspections. The judicial precedents cited

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Pvt Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

appreciated this distinction. 18. One very important development took place post these judgments, that an amendment has been brought in the statute in section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, "Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

appreciated this distinction. 18. One very important development took place post these judgments, that an amendment has been brought in the statute in section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, "Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cent. Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

appreciated this distinction. 18. One very important development took place post these judgments, that an amendment has been brought in the statute in section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, "Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

appreciated this distinction. 18. One very important development took place post these judgments, that an amendment has been brought in the statute in section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, "Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. S K Z Developers LLP, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1729/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 23(5)

unit. The AO observed that BU permission for project developed by assessee was taken on 22-01-2019 and as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act, two years had passed on 31-03-2021, hence, addition of deemed rent @ 7.5% of value of property was required ... principle, agreed with the finding of A.O. that deemed rent was required to be computed as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act. He, however, restricted such estimated rent @ 3% of fair market value of property and directed AO to allow 30% standard deduction on such estimated rent

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. S K Z Developers LLP, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1728/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 23(5)

unit. The AO observed that BU permission for project developed by assessee was taken on 22-01-2019 and as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act, two years had passed on 31-03-2021, hence, addition of deemed rent @ 7.5% of value of property was required ... principle, agreed with the finding of A.O. that deemed rent was required to be computed as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act. He, however, restricted such estimated rent @ 3% of fair market value of property and directed AO to allow 30% standard deduction on such estimated rent

Skz Developers LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1678/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 23(5)

unit. The AO observed that BU permission for project developed by assessee was taken on 22-01-2019 and as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act, two years had passed on 31-03-2021, hence, addition of deemed rent @ 7.5% of value of property was required ... principle, agreed with the finding of A.O. that deemed rent was required to be computed as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act. He, however, restricted such estimated rent @ 3% of fair market value of property and directed AO to allow 30% standard deduction on such estimated rent

Skz Developers LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cent. Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue for the year under consideration is hereby dismissed

ITA 1677/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 23(5)

unit. The AO observed that BU permission for project developed by assessee was taken on 22-01-2019 and as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act, two years had passed on 31-03-2021, hence, addition of deemed rent @ 7.5% of value of property was required ... principle, agreed with the finding of A.O. that deemed rent was required to be computed as per provision of Section 23(5) of the Act. He, however, restricted such estimated rent @ 3% of fair market value of property and directed AO to allow 30% standard deduction on such estimated rent

Paramjit Singh Mohansingh Obhan, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4863/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantt & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J PatelFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250

Tribunal had duly considered the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ansal Housing Finance and noted that the provisions of section 23(5) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01.04.2018 to govern the computation of deemed rent in respect of unsold stock

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6129/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (ACCOUNTANT

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

that the legislative intent was also to tax the lease rentals under section 22 only. This can be inferred from the introduction of section 23(5) to the Act. Though the amendment was brought in the year 2018, but the law maker intention behind the amendment is, to not charge

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

that the legislative intent was also to tax the lease rentals under section 22 only. This can be inferred from the introduction of section 23(5) to the Act. Though the amendment was brought in the year 2018, but the law maker intention behind the amendment is, to not charge

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

that the legislative intent was also to tax the lease rentals under section 22 only. This can be inferred from the introduction of section 23(5) to the Act. Though the amendment was brought in the year 2018, but the law maker intention behind the amendment is, to not charge

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

that the legislative intent was also to tax the lease rentals under section 22 only. This can be inferred from the introduction of section 23(5) to the Act. Though the amendment was brought in the year 2018, but the law maker intention behind the amendment is, to not charge

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

Assessing Officer does not survive. However, it is worth mentioning that the position would be different for years when the amendment to section 23(5) became effective from Assessment Year 2018-19 when legislature in its wisdom 21 Dosti Realty Ltd. Assessment Year 2015-16 brought the income

Janta Land Promoters Private Limited, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Chandigarh, Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 907/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

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