← All Phrases

“Section 295(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 295Section 295(2)22 judgments

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

ITA 400/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Shalabh Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh

BHUPENDRA BORA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 230/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 90

further submitted by him that section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: "(2) In particular, and without prejudice

KALIDOSS NATARAJAN,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1976/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

further submitted by him that section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: "(2) In particular, and without prejudice

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

BASAVALINGA SADASIVAIAH AJAIKUMAR,MYSORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1470/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

further submitted by him that section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: "(2) In particular, and without prejudice

ANDREW JEROME JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 664/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department
Section 143(1)Section 90

further submitted by him that Section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: “(2) In particular, and without prejudice

KRISHNAKUMAR BALASANKARA SUBRAMANIAN,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 247/BANG/2024[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Preeti Goel, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 245Section 90

further submitted by him that Section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: “(2) In particular, and without prejudice

TESSOLVE SEMICONDUCTOR PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2021-22
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

further submitted by him that Section 295(1) of the Act\ngives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various\npurposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue\nRules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: “(2) In\nparticular, and without prejudice

ASHA RANI PANDYA,INDORE vs. CPC BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniasha Rani Pandya Dcit/Acit-1(1) 389 1Ad- Scheme No.74C Indore Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqqpp7081A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Shri Prakash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

further submitted by him that Section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: "(2) In particular, and without prejudice

MONIKA ARYA ,TELANGANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 913/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Smt. Vaidehi G., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90Section 90(2)

further submitted by him that Section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the\nCBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to\nthe Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow:\n“(2) In particular, and without prejudice

MOOG MOTION CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

further submitted by him that Section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: “(2) In particular, and without prejudice

DEEPAK SHIMOGA PADMARAJU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate byFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 90

further submitted by him that Section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: “(2) In particular, and without prejudice

DELOITTE INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI/CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1202/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Revised Return, Therefore The Appellant Ought To Have Been Allowed Entire Foreign Tax Relief Of Rs. 2,82,44,841. 1.3 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Rule 128 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 Does Not Provide For Disallowance Of Foreign Tax Relief In Case Of Filing Of Revised Form 67 Along With The Revised Return. 1.4 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Granted The Balance Foreign Tax Relief Amounting To Rs. 1,34,86,569 Since The Appellant Has Filed The Revised Form 67 Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Revised Return Of Income.

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 90(2)

fact it has been mandated the FTC has to be given if the income has been shown and declared in ROI in India. Section 295(2)(ha) of the Act authorizes CBDT to make rules for providing the procedure for granting of relief or deduction of any income tax paid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATESWARA RAO THOTAKURA, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 295(1)Section 295(2)Section 90Section 90ASection 91

section 295(1) of the Act which gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Clause-(ha) of section 295(2) gives power to the CBDT to issue Rules for FTC [foreign tax credit]. The relevant extract is as follows: “Sec. 295(2) In particular, and without

AMBIBUZZ TECHNOLOGIES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1084/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

further submitted by him that Section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: “(2) In particular, and without prejudice

AJAY KUMAR MISHRA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ajay Kumar Mishra, Vs Dcit, B-12, The Icon, Dlf City, Circle-1(1), Phase-5, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana-122009. Pan-Aowpm7493R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri D.K.Pandey, Ca & Shri Manish Pandey, Ca Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 90

Rules. It is further submitted that Section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: "(2) In particular, and without prejudice

DCIT, IN. TAX. CIRCLE-2(2)(2), NEW DELHI vs. HOTCHAND TECKCHAND PUNJABI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1680/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Hotchand Techchand International Taxation, Punjabi, Circle -2(2)(2), C/O- Nidhi Goyal, Ca, A-3 New Delhi Mod Apartment 61, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi Pan :Aqupp2417I (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 295(2)Section 69B

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 Rule, 1962. 2. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has inadventently erred ... crores based on admissibility of the additional evidence without calling for remand repot from the assessing officers 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. As could be seen from

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

SUBRAMANIAN SREERAM,BANGALORE vs. CIT(APPEALS)-NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 90

further submitted by him that section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: "(2) In particular, and without prejudice

SANJIV GOPAL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sanjiv Gopal, Vs. Adit, No.181, Ground Floor Mandara, Cpc, 2B Cross, 4Th Main, Domlur 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Agvpg 2262 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

further submitted by him that Section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board to issue Rules for FTC. The relevant extract is as follow: “(2) In particular, and without prejudice

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2