← All Phrases

“Income-tax Officer”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(25) / Section 1175,006 judgments

The decision most relied on for Income-tax Officer is CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), cited in 1,162 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Income-tax Officer

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court
359
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT
263 ITR 101 · 2003 · High Court
266
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
56 ITR 198 · 1965 · Supreme Court
230
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income-tax Act. These circulars are binding even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, particularly when issued to relieve hardships.

Judgments citing Income-tax Officer

United Brothers Multiplast LLP (Successor to M/S United Brothers), Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2919/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailunited Brothers Multiplast Llp (Successor To M/S. United Brothers) 301, Heritage Plazza, A Wing, R.S. Maharaj Marg, Teli Gali, ……………. Appellant Cross Lane, Andheri (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400069 Pan: Aaafu0314K V/S

For Appellant: Shri V.G. GindeFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and if one of the limbs is absent, i.e., if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to Revenue, recourse cannot be had to section

Paresh Ratanshi Nissar, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(3) at Present Jurisdiction With the ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 4647 &

ITA 4648/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SRDR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16,both of ordersdated26.10.2023. The impugned ordersare emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 24(3)(3), Mumbai (in brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’)passed under section143(3) of the Act, date of order 27/12/2016 and 29/12/2017 for A.Ys

Paresh Ratanshi Nissar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 4647 &

ITA 4647/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SRDR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16,both of ordersdated26.10.2023. The impugned ordersare emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 24(3)(3), Mumbai (in brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’)passed under section143(3) of the Act, date of order 27/12/2016 and 29/12/2017 for A.Ys

Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward 1(3) Delhi, Delhi vs. Basketball Fedration of India, Delhi

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

ITA 162/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Basketball Federation of India, Income-Tax Officer No.2B, Sagar Appartments, (Exemption), Ward-1(3), 6 Tilak Marg, New Delhi-1100 01 Delhi. PAN :AAAJB0708L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Shri Shreeharee

Gyan Bharti Educational Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1548/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 144Section 250

furnishing the same and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income-tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause. 14. In the above judgment, Hon hie Court has held that filing of audit report

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 976/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 263

aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according ... been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous.” 11. In the case of Rajgul Credit Invest P. Ltd. Vs. PCIT

Prakashchand Jain Multi State Co.Operative Credit Society Ltd., Jamner vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1791, 1801 & 1802/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2014-15 & 2018-19 The Prakashchand Jain Multi V The Income Tax Officer, State Co-Operative Credit S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Society Ltd., Mayur Complex, Bajrangpura Road, Jamner, Jalgaon – 424206. Pan: Aaaap4677K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 10.07.2024, A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2018-19 Dated 09.07.2024 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common & Facts Are Identical, All The Three Appeals

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

ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista SevakanchiSahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322 (Pune Tribunal) has held as under : Quote “7………………………..I am of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society on deposits

The Prakashchand Jain Multi State Co Operative Society Ltd., Jamner vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1801/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1791, 1801 & 1802/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2014-15 & 2018-19 The Prakashchand Jain Multi V The Income Tax Officer, State Co-Operative Credit S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Society Ltd., Mayur Complex, Bajrangpura Road, Jamner, Jalgaon – 424206. Pan: Aaaap4677K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 10.07.2024, A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2018-19 Dated 09.07.2024 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common & Facts Are Identical, All The Three Appeals

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

ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista SevakanchiSahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322 (Pune Tribunal) has held as under : Quote “7………………………..I am of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society on deposits

The Prakashchand Jain Multi State Co Operative Credit Society Ltd., Jamner vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1791, 1801 & 1802/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2014-15 & 2018-19 The Prakashchand Jain Multi V The Income Tax Officer, State Co-Operative Credit S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Society Ltd., Mayur Complex, Bajrangpura Road, Jamner, Jalgaon – 424206. Pan: Aaaap4677K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 10.07.2024, A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2018-19 Dated 09.07.2024 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common & Facts Are Identical, All The Three Appeals

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

ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista SevakanchiSahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322 (Pune Tribunal) has held as under : Quote “7………………………..I am of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society on deposits

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

acts or orders which are subversive of the administration of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or pattem for similar assessments, which on a broad reckoning, the Commissioner might think to be prejudicial ... this task is entrusted to the Revenue. It is further observed that if due to an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 13. Thus, it is clear that

Yadram, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-68(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 3417/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 250Section 250(6)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2013-14 Yadram, Vs Income-tax Officer, 1111 Sectopr A Pocket B, Ward-68(1), New Delhi Vasant Kunj, Delhi-110070. PAN: AAAPY 2668 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rajat Chhabra

Rajdhanai Maitri Club Foundation, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-43(6), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 302/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara[Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2022-23 Rajdhani Maitri Club Foundation, Vs Income-tax Officer, 311, Rajdhani Enclave, Ward 43(6), Civic Centre, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. Delhi-110034. PAN: AADTR 6738 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None

Jhm Developers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer - 13(3), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1470/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 148Section 250Section 69C

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12 JHM Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, Chatterjee International Chamber, Ward-13(3), New Delhi JL Nehru Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-700071. PAN: AABCJ 8739 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri

Vachaspati Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 18Section 234BSection 234DSection 28Section 45(5)Section 56

Puri and Ors. in C. R. No. 7953 of 2013 dated 21.12.2013 ( P & H High Court) 21. Supreme Court in the case of Income-tax Officer TDS- 1 Surat Vs. Movaliya Bhikhulbhai Balabhai SLP(C) No.018495 / 2017 22. Decision in the case of Gujarat High Court in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Madurai vs. M/S Ramco Systems Limited, Rajapalayam

ITA 1269/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Mr.S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

A & A Capital Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1885/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2017-18 A & A Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, M-55, Terrace Portion, M Block Market, Ward-1(1), Delhi. Greater Kailash-2, Delhi-110048. PAN: AABCA `1051 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant

Bishamber Yadav, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 68(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1774/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 250

DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishamber Yadav, Vs Income-tax Officer, House No. 152, Deep Chand Pradhan Ward-68(1), Delhi. Mohalla, Rajokari, New Delhi-110038. PAN: ACGPY 1104 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri M.R. Sahu

Sngeeta Wahi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 50(2), New Delhi

ITA 930/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Sangeeta Wahi, 8/41, Tax Officer, South Patel Nagar, New Ward 50(2), Delhi Delhi-110008 Pan :Aabpw4110E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Kumar, Ca Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144

quashed. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Limited Vs Income-tax Officer, reported in 2024 165 taxmann.com. On the other hand the Learned DR expressed his inability to produce the copy of the order under Section

Srimanta Kumar Shit, Purba Medinapore vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 27(2), Haldia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1911/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Srimanta Kumar Shit,………………...…………Appellant Rangamalaput, Junput-Contai, Purba Medinapore-721450, West Bengal [Pan:Bffps3635Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax..…Respondent Circle-27(2), Haldia, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Midnapore-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

sheets in assessment folders. In support reliance is placed on the decision of The Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench Vudatha Vani Rao v. Income-tax Officer [[2024] 6 Srimanta Kumar Shit 159 taxmann.com 1394 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.)] wherein the court held as under: [Refer page 23-25 of paper book

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1266/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

apply for the period during which the said conditions remain complied with— (a) such persons have, by notice in writing, given to the Income-tax Officer in the prescribed manner, specified the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income