“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT

389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court

241

citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT

392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court

202

citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Mohhamad Wajahat Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (Int Txnt)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.532 To 534/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17& 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69A

assessee has preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee submitted that he had filed appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment order Page 3 of 9 ITA Nos 532 to 534 of 2023 Mohd Wajahat Ali Khan passed by the Assessing ... Mohd Wajahat Ali Khan 5. Being aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee being a non-resident is not required to file his return of income

Mohhamad Wajahat Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (Int Txnt)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 533/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69A

Mohhamad Wajahat Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (Int Txnt)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 532/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69A

Musaddilal Jewellers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.272/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Musaddilal Jewellers Private Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecm1213A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ca Bhupesh Kumar Dand ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr

For Appellant: CA Bhupesh Kumar DandFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, DR

Section 143(3)

account of bogus purchases . 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the basis for making of addition in the hands of the assessee was Question No.15 at page-2 of the order

Mohammed Khalid Masud, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 171/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Khalid Masud……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 70, Karaya Road, Circus Row Kolkata - 700019. [Pan:Afapm6677G] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 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 Appeal Is Time Barred By 389 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Further Supported By An Affidavit Of The Petitioner Namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

stipulated under the IT Act, the Tribunal is not one of them. It is purely an appellate authority. Therefore, the object of the appeal before the Tribunal is whether the addition or disallowance I.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammed Khalid Masud sustained was in accordance with law and supported

Revathi Samuel, Salem vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1285/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1285/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Revathi Samuel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 10A, Ramakrishna Road, International Taxation 2(1) Sreerangapalayam, Chennai. Salem 636 007. [Pan: Acxps 8637C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153(3)Section 250Section 55A

absurd. Thus, ground of appeal no.9 also stands dismissed’’. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that while computing capital gain, AO should have taken FMV as the value

Shrouta Vijnam Gurukulam, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Exemptions, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

ITA 694/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : Na M/S. Shrouta Vijnan Gurukulam, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), 1 Nidagod, Targod B. O. Ward – 1, Arasapur, Mangaluru. Uttara Kannada – 561 402. Pan : Aants 0655 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prakash S Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(E)’S Order Dated 22.02.2024 Rejecting The Assessee’S Application Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Prakash S Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Order of the CIT(E), rejecting the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G of the Act. assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the Trust Deed dated 05.04.0213, amendment to Trust Deed dated 19.02.2023, activity report of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -26(1), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. R D Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3703/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Atui T. Suraiya, C.A and Shri T.P. Ostwal, C.A RevenueFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)

sections 13(1)(d) and section 13(2)(h) are not applicable in the case of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is also worthwhile to note that the correct amount

Golam Iyajdani Mondal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(1), New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3479/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. G. S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

matter, the decision of the AO is upheld. Consequently, the Grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. We have perused the cash deposits

Arvind Kumar Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Hapur

ITA 2108/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 Arvind Kumar Singh, Vs Ito, 282, Boundry Road, Ward 3(4), Civil Line, Hapur. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh – 250 001. Pan: Dbyps2729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

appeal Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition to Rs. 8,17,675/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal taking following ground of appeal: “1. That the A.O. has initiate proceeding U/s 147 as per address as per sale deed, however

Shri Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Pune-11, Pune

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

ITA 316/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B C MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

No.219/2017 (Delhi HC) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to prolonged suffering from major depressive disorder with psychotic factures, the assessee

Sri Kalyana Venkata Narasimha Murthy Mangipudi, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle--2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 276/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.276/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sri Kalyana Venkata Narasimha Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Murthy, Mangipudi, Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Afkpm 0305 F Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ca Hemanth Pai ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Hemanth PaiFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234BSection 69A

assessee affirming the addition made by the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative [“Ld. AR”] submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity

Jai Balajee Security Services Private Limited, Chittoor vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 62/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal, raising as many as four grounds. 6. At the time of arguments, the learned AR pressed only Ground No.1 and submitted that the Ld.CIT

ACIT, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad vs. Narendra Kumar Kamaraju, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 338/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.338/Hyd/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Narendra Kumar Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kamaraju, Hyderabad. 3-83/1/A/5, Nizampet, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Pan: Aiypk 1035 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ca Ravi Bharadwaj ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Sri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case

Nawal Kishore Kejriwal Charity Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 427/KOL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Nawal Kishore Kejriwal Charity Trust,........Appellant 90/31, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-700038 [Pan: Aaatn5888R] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption),.Respondent Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Datta, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 20, 2024 O R D E R

Date of pronouncing the order: May 20, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Kolkata dated 12.05.2023 passed for A.Y. 2023-24. 1 Assessment Year

Suhasini Charity Foundation, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 424/KOL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 424/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Suhasini Charity Foundation,……............Appellant 12/1, Alipore Park Road, Alipore, Kolkata-700027 [Pan: Aaits9311G] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption),.Respondent Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Datta, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 20, 2024 O R D E R

Rajib Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO- Ward-30(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

counsel submitted that as per the provisions of Section 253(3) of the Act ,the appeal before the Tribunal against the order u/s 250(6) of the Act , has to be filed within sixty days from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated. Further

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 131Section 14ASection 68

Date of pronouncing the order : May 20, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata dated 19th February, 2020 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 1 Vishnu

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

ACIT, Anand Circle, in response to application filed by the assessee. The relevant extracts of the Report are reproduced below for ready reference:- “Appeal before the Tribunal in ITA no. 2004/Ahd/2014 (Assessee) & ITA no. 1873/Ahd/2014 (Department) The assessee in its appeal no.2004/Ahd/2014 has raised following, grounds of appeal ... appeal before the Supreme Court is yet to be finalized. Hence 158A is applicable. 2. Ground no.6, 6.1 & 7 of the appeal before the tribunal is identical with grounds (i) & (ii) for AY 2004-05 and the appeal before the Gujarat High Court is yet to be finalized. Hence 158A

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax., Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)