“gross total income”

Chapter VI - Deductions / Set-offSection 80B(5)Section 80B(5) / Rule 3D2,282 judgments

The decision most relied on for gross total income is CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State (200 Taxmann 220), cited in 348 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on gross total income

CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State

200 Taxmann 220 · 2011 · High Court

348

citing judgments

Interest earned by a Co-operative Society from investing fixed deposits in banks is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court

290

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

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.

Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (IT) & Another

299 ITR 444 · 2008 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

When computing deductions under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80IA, losses from other business undertakings must be set off against the profits of the eligible undertaking before calculating the deduction. No deduction under Section 80IA is permissible if the overall 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession' results in a loss.

CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.

286 ITR 255 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act is to be allowed only after setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses against the profits of the business.

CIT v. Williamson Financial Services

165 Taxmann 638 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Income-tax is levied on the total income of an assessee, not on gross receipts. The tax is on income, and deductions for expenditure are permissible.

CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited

127 Taxmann.com 69 · 2021 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 80-IA or 80-IB is computed by setting it off against the gross total income to arrive at the total income of an assessee.

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.

328 ITR 448 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, such as Section 80-IA, are to be calculated and allowed with reference to the assessee's gross total income, not just business income.

Judgments citing gross total income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Rockman Industries Limited

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 794/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

undertaking as required u/s 80IC. In this particular case, if the “cash discount” is reduced form the cost of purchases, even than the gross total income of the assessee would remain the same. The purchases against which the cash discount has been earned having direct link with the purchases

DCIT Circle-4, Ludhiana vs. Rockman Industries Ltd, Ludhiana

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 748/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

Bheemunipatnam Mutually Aided Cooperative Building Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 175, 176 & 177/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) Bheemunipatnam Mutually Aided V. Dcit / Acit, Circle – 3(1) Cooperative Building Society Limited Income Tax Office H.No. 10-36-284 Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Bheemunipatnam – 531163 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaaat5114H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

cooperative society and therefore any income referred in sub-section (2) of Section 80P of the Act which is included in the gross total income of the assessee, shall be allowed as deduction. The revenue denied the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act stating that interest income

Bheemunipetam Mutually Aided Cooperative Building Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Bheemunipatnam Mutually Aided Cooperative Building Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 175/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Aniruddha Kundu, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1498/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1498/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aniruddha Kundu…..………………........………………....Appellant 604, 99 Spruce Place, Sw, Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T3C3X7. [Pan: Aphpk9684E] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Midnapore….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.P Datta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Roma Chaudhury, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Earning Income Abroad During The Relevant Period. The Assessing Officer Obtained Information That Gross Total Income Of The Assessee During The Assessment Year Amounting To Rs.59,49,229/- Was Comprised Of Proceed From Epf Maturity Of Rs.2,56,041/-, Lic Maturity Of Rs.26,92,564/-, Interest Income Of Rs.39/-, Payment Made To Non- Residents Of Rs.331/-. The Assessee Also Made Investment Of Rs.14,00,000/- & Rs.16,00,000/- Into Two Bank Term Deposits Claimed To Be A Genuine Source Of The Income. A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Issued To The Assessee Followed By Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

case are that the assessee is an individual and earning income abroad during the relevant period. The Assessing Officer obtained information that gross total income of the assessee during the assessment year amounting to Rs.59,49,229/- was comprised of proceed from EPF maturity of Rs.2,56,041/-, LIC maturity

Shree Vivekanand Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Unjha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-4), Patan

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1003/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Section 80P(2)(d) are as under:- “80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section ... Section 80P(2)(a)(i) are as under:- “80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section

Sh. Surendra Kumar Patni, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Surendra Kumar Patni, C/O. M/S. Kalani & Co., 5Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 015. Pan No.: Adupp9249 D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 005. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.C. Parwal, Ca, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2024 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Jaipur Dated 25.06.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69B

income of immediately preceding A.Y. From the submissions before the bench made by the Ld. Sr. DR. it can be verified that the gross total income of A.Y. 2017-18 and 2016-17 was Rs. 2,23,63,590/- and Rs. NIL respectively.  The Assessee has retracted from disclosure made

Nikhaar Fashions, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1020/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69B

income of immediately preceding A.Y. From the submissions before the bench made by the Ld. Sr. DR. it can be verified that the gross total income of A.Y. 2017-18 and 2016-17 was Rs. 1,20,08,080/- and Rs. 42, 05,997/- respectively. • The Assessee has retracted from

DCIT (It)-2(1)(2), Air Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. Dbs Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4722/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3691/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

S T Co-Operative Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2136/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2136/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 S T Co-Operative Credit V The Income Tax Officer, Society, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Swargate S T Depo, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Swargate Bus Stand, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabas6856L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.08.2024 For A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause As Explained In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Filed Before Cit(A) & Therefore, The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & The Appeal Should Have Been Adjudicated On Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Deduction U/S 80P Was Allowable In Respect Of Interest Earned From Deposits Made By Cooperative Banks As Consistently Held By Honorable

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

engaged in the business of accepting deposits from members and lending loans to its members. Assessee had filed Return of Income 3 showing Gross Total Income of Rs.80,17,177/- and total income at Rs.Nil; claiming deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has observed that assessee

Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 1504/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1504/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Anil Apartment, Baner S Ward-2(1), Pune. Residency, Baner Road, Near Sakal Nagar, Aunch, Ganeshkind, Pune – 411007. Pan: Drbps7371R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.10.2023 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Assessing Officer Is Erred In Considering The Cash Deposited Of Rs.10,46,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A R.W.S 115Bbe. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Assessing Officer Is Erred In Treating Agricultural Income Of Rs.13,63,625/- As Income From Other Sources. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erred In Making An Addition On Account Of Cash Deposited Whereas Same Is Already Considered In Net Profit & In Gross Total Income. This Addition Is Resulting As A Double Taxation. 4. The Appellant Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Revise, Substitute, Delete Or Alter Any/All Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) : 2. Ld.Ar Submitted That There Was Delay In Filing Appeal Before The Itat. Ld.Ar Filed Copy Of Affidavit Of The Assessee Which Explains The Reasons For Delay.

Section 250Section 69A

Assessing officer is erred in making an addition on account of cash deposited whereas same is already considered in Net profit and in gross total income. This addition is resulting as a double taxation. 4. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, revise, substitute, delete or alter any/all

Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(1), Nagpur vs. Suresh Gokuldas Bajaj, Nagpur

ITA 2/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

case in detailed. The written submission of the appellant's is reproduced as under: 1. The assessee had filed return of Income declaring Gross total Income of Rs.8,98,415/- on 16/03/2016 vide e-filing Acknowledgment No. 988630150160316 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee is a regular ... activities. 1. The assessee further mentions that the assessee has filed the return of income against the Notice u/s 148 dated 11/03/2021 declaring Gross Total Income of Rs.8,98,415/- on 06/10/2021 vide e-filing Acknowledg– ment 642315130061021. The copy of Return of Income filed u/s 148 and computation

Divya Dugar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 555/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Itat Through The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250

same does not come within the ambit of 'an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return', therefore, enhanced the gross total income made by the CPC was without jurisdiction which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal

Vag Infotech, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-53(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3572/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2013-14 Vag Infotech, Vs. Acit, Circle 53(1), D-42, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 049 (Pan: Aaafv2681C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 234ASection 45Section 50C

declared in ITR): Addition u/s. 45 r.w. 50C Rs. 1,00,31,250/- Rs. 2,14,63,242/- Gross total income Rs. 1,57,63,580/- Total taxable income Rs. 1,57,63,580/- 3.1 Against the above order, assessee appealed before

Vision Diagnostic India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

nothing abnormal in the cash flow of the assessee company as compared to previous financial year as percentage of cash deposit to Gross Total Income, for the FY 2016- 17 during the period from 9th Nov 2016 to 30th Nov 2016, stood at 22.53% i.e. (Rs.38,00,000/1 ... that Percentage of cash deposit to Gross Total Income, for the FY 2015-16 during the period from 9th Nov 2015 to 30th Nov 2015, stood at 18.57% i.e. (₹20,00,000/1,07,71,870%). 9. We find that Ld. AO has not at all disturbed this income calculation

Rajendra Pratap Yadav, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC

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

ITA 614/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendra Pratap Yadav V. The Cit(A) 21/202, Indira Nagar Nfac Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acmpy9678E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

assessee as under: 1. Cash deposits u/s. 69A of the Act : Rs.41,78,000/- 2. Cash credit u/s.69A of the Act : Rs.98,287/- Gross total income : Rs.42,76,287/- (Rounded off) Rs.42,76,290/- 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2) Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 524/AHD/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR

Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

same as shown in the Profit & Loss Account mentioned hereinabove as "Profit Before Tax". Thus, it can be seen that the gross total income of the assessee includes profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking. We find that the gross total income of the assessee included lease rent ... Gains of Business". In our understanding of the facts, the same item of receipt cannot be treated differently, i.e., once while computing the gross total income and secondly, at the time of computing deduction u/s 80-1 of the Act. An identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble High

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2) Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 523/AHD/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR

Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H

Inox India Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2) Now Circle- 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

ITA 522/AHD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR

Section 251Section 251(2)Section 801A(9)Section 801HSection 80H