← All Phrases

“Section 35(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(2)49 judgments

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2719/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nasavarak Jore,atj, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)

allowing the claim of capital expenditure u/s. 35(1)(iv) read with 6 ITA.No.2719/PUN./2024 (Epygen Biotech Pvt. Ltd.) Explanation 1 of section 35(2) of the Act without appreciating the fact that commencement of business has not started during the year as required under Explanation ... provisions of section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. So far as the issue under consideration is that section 35(1) and section 35(2) has a direct bearing, therefore the same are reproduced as below:- 35. (1) In respect of expenditure on scientific research, the following deductions shall

ACIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 742/CHANDI/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.742/Chandi/2009 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Acit Circle 5(1) M/S Venus Remedies Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Sco 40-41, Sector 17-A Sco 39, Sector – 26 Chandigarh – 160017 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv-6524-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca), Sh. Jaspal Sharma (Advocate)&Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – By Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07 Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us Pursuant To The Directions Of Hon’Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court In Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.81-2012 Dated 25-07-2024 Wherein Following Substantial Questions Of Law Were Determined: - 1. Weather On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon’Ble Itat Was Right In Upholding The Decision Of Ld. Cit(A) Who Directed The Ao To Reallocate The Expenses On Sales Ratio & To Reduce The Addition To Rs.142.24 Lacs As Against The Addition Of Rs.7,61,96,306/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C?

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA), Sh. Jaspal SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 35(2)Section 4Section 69CSection 80I

1 Assessment Year: 2006-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

35(2AB) was not allowed, the expenditure of Rs.1,63,54,602/- be allowed as deduction under section 35(1)(iv) read with section 35(2), which provides for 100% deduction of capital expenditure incurred for scientific research. The DRP, however, upheld the Assessing Officer’s disallowance, concurring that ... Form 3CL, it nonetheless represents capital expenditure on scientific research and hence qualifies for deduction under section 35(1)(iv) read with section 35(2)(i), which operates independently of DSIR certification. The DRP had also acknowledged this position in its direction and 18 advised the Assessing Officer to consider

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal f

ITA 2600/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 2Section 35

assessee shall be admissible as deduction in terms of business of the assessee shall be admissible as deduction in terms of provision of Section 35(2) of the Act. provision of Section 35(2) of the Act. It is further noted that sub It is further noted that sub-clause ... Section 35(2) of the Act provides that, where the capital (ia) of Section 35(2) of the Act provides that, where the capital (ia) of Section 35(2) of the Act provides that, where the capital expenditure has been incurred after 31.03.1967, the entire value of expenditure has been

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

capital nature on scientific research, related to the business of the assessee shall be admissible as deduction in terms of provision of Section 35(2) of the Act. It is further noted that sub-clause (ia) of Section 35(2) of the Act provides that, where the capital expenditure ... normal deduction i.e. 100% of the capital expenditure incurred at its R&D facility in terms of Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, irrespective whether such capital expenditure is eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

capital nature on scientific research, related to the business of the assessee shall be admissible as deduction in terms of provision of Section 35(2) of the Act. It is further noted that sub-clause (ia) of Section 35(2) of the Act provides that, where the capital expenditure ... normal deduction i.e. 100% of the capital expenditure incurred at its R&D facility in terms of Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, irrespective whether such capital expenditure is eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 96/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full ... allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 333/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full ... allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PUNE

ITA 228/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full ... allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full ... allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full

MAHLE BEHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 795/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)

allowing deduction in respect of\nexpenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section\n35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital\nnature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for\nfull

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 445/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case ... ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 444/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15
Section 40A(3)

ascertain whether the order of the Deputy\nCommissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four\nyears prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will\nadjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein\nand in the judgment in the case ... ascertain whether the order of the Deputy\nCommissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four\nyears prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will\nadjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein\nand in the judgment in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 442/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case ... ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 441/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case ... ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 364/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case ... ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 363/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13
Section 40A(3)

ascertain whether the order of the Deputy\nCommissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four\nyears prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will\nadjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein\nand in the judgment in the case ... ascertain whether the order of the Deputy\nCommissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four\nyears prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will\nadjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein\nand in the judgment in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 362/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16
Section 40A(3)

ascertain whether the order of the Deputy\nCommissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four\nyears prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will\nadjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein\nand in the judgment in the case ... ascertain whether the order of the Deputy\nCommissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four\nyears prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will\nadjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein\nand in the judgment in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 361/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15
Section 40A(3)

ascertain whether the order of the Deputy\nCommissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four\nyears prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will\nadjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein\nand in the judgment in the case ... ascertain whether the order of the Deputy\nCommissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four\nyears prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will\nadjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein\nand in the judgment in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 360/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case ... ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3