← All Phrases

“Section 295(2)(mm)”

Section References (mined)Section 295Section 295(2)(mm)5 judgments

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 353/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 694ASection 69A

will be ultra vires and void. Rule 46A was introduced with effect from 1-4-1973 and as a result of Insertion of Section 295(2)(mm) in the income tax act which empowered Board to provide for the circumstances in which, the condition subject to which and the manner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. POONAM KHETRAPAL SINGH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1000/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1000/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Poonam Khetrapal Singh, बनाम Circle 1(1), H. No 816, Sector 16, Chandigarh Chandigarh. Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anqps6367R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.7.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Kumar Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 295(2)(mm)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

without giving finding in writing before admitting the same as required by the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 read with Section 295(2)(mm) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1000-Chd-2024 Poonam Khetrapal Singh, Chandigarh 3 5 It is prayed that the order

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

ITA 871/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Ao.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

void. Rule 46A was introduced with effect from 1-4-1973 and as a result of 11 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT Insertion of Section 295(2)(mm) in the income tax act which empowered Board to provide for the circumstances in which, the condition subject to which and the manner

ACIT,CIRCLE 2(1)(2) INT. TAXATION, DELHI vs. RAJIV KUMAR , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 295(2)(mm)

evidence without conducting a third party verification and without calling for remand report from the assessing officer which is in clear violation of Section 295(2)(mm) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances

ACIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI vs. RAGHUBIR SINGH KOHLI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 254/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anshita Baharani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 295(2)(mm)Section 69

basis of additional evidence without calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer which is in clear violation of Section 295(2)(mm) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962” 3. The assessee aged about 83 years is a non-resident