“ICDS”

ICDS & AccountingSection 145(2)Section 145(2)865 judgments

The decision most relied on for ICDS is ICDS Ltd. v. CIT (350 ITR 527), cited in 280 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on ICDS

350 ITR 527 · 2013 · Supreme Court

An assessee engaged in the business of hire purchase or leasing, being the lessor, is entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out, even if the assets are registered in the name of the lessee and used by the lessee.

SB) in Indusind Bank Ltd. v. ADIT

19 Taxmann.com 173 · 2012 · Reported

citing judgments

A Special Bench decision of the Tribunal rendered prior to a Supreme Court decision is subordinate to the Supreme Court ruling.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT

10 SCC 529 · Reported

citing judgments

The Supreme Court remands a matter when an assessee is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine individuals whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.

ICDS Limited v. CIT (

69 Taxmann.com 317 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

In lease transactions, only the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation, regardless of whether the lease is a finance lease or an operating lease. This is because the substantial risks and rewards of ownership are not transferred to the lessee.

Manipal Finance Corporation Limited v. ACTT Circle-1 Udupi

49 Taxmann.com 353 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

This case discusses the allowability of depreciation on leased assets in finance leases, a matter that has been addressed by the Supreme Court in ICDS Ltd vs CIT.

CIT v. G Narasimhan

236 ITR 327 · 1999 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Accumulated profits for the purpose of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) are to be computed in accordance with the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) rather than opening balances as per Indian GAAP. This case also touches upon the definition of 'transfer' under section 2(47).

Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr. v. UOI

87 Taxmann.com 92 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The Delhi High Court held that Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) notified under Section 145(2) were ultra vires the provisions of the Income Tax Act, as they exceeded delegated legislative power. Subsequently, Section 43CB was introduced to provide statutory backing for certain ICDS provisions, such as those related to construction contracts using the percentage of completion method.

Judgments citing ICDS

DCIT, Circle 8 Pune, Pune vs. Alfa Laval India Pvt Ltd, Pune

ITA 2270/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 92C

Large “any other amount allowable as deduction” claimed in Schedule BP of return 7. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income 8. Difference in ICDS adjustments reported in Form 3CD and ITR.” 3. Accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served ... after making the following adjustments: i. T. P. Adjustment as per order u/s.92CA(3) Rs.1,78,97,091/- ii. Short disallowance u/s.40(a) iii. ICDS Adjustment Not disclosed iv. Disallowance u/s 14A V. Liquidated damages written back vi. Project Provision Costs written back Rs.1,11,75,451/- Rs.7

Devi Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 316/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 263

debited to the Profit & Loss Account by following Ind AS Accounting Standard and also as per the Income Computation Disclosure Standards — VI (in short “ICDS-VI”) prescribed under section 145 of the Act. It was submitted that there is slight variation in the measurement of value of loss ... ICDS disclosures and the assessee has worked out the same at Rs.14,14,19,625/-. After verification of the assessee’s above submissions, the Ld.Pr.CIT found the contentions of the assessee as not acceptable for the reason that hedging forward contracts of foreign currency cannot be “marked to Market

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur(CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment order specifically takes note of the fact that no variation is proposed on account of non-compliance with Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (ICDS) and large difference in opening stock of current year and closing stock of previous year. However, Ld. AO alleged that the assessee purchased raw material from ... show-cause notice was issued on 18-03-2025 identifying various issues viz. (i) no verification of stock register was done; (ii) issue of ICDS valuation of stock not verified properly; (iii) Addition to building, Plant & Machinery and furniture was not examined; (iv) Expenses claimed for Rs.543.53 Lacs were

Hmshost Hospitality Services Bharath Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra Mohan Gupta – Advocate and Shri Divjot Oberoi - CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 43B

assessment year. While processing the return, CPC made an adjustment of ₹20,90,74,357 on the ground that there were inconsistencies between the ICDS adjustments disclosed in the ITR and those mentioned in the Tax Audit Report. Subsequently, in the rectification order dated 28.11.2023, CPC restricted the adjustment ... This sum was treated as excess depreciation claimed on tangible fixed assets under ICDS V. 9. Before the learned ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the effect of ICDS V had already been considered in the return of income. The assessee had suo-moto disallowed depreciation

Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited, Gandhinagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad - 3, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1275/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 43(1)

assessment records and observed that after the Finance Act, 2015 amended the definition of “income” and Explanation 10 to section 43(1) and with ICDS-VII in force, Government Grants related to depreciable assets must either be added to income or must reduce the actual cost/WDV of the asset ... should reduce the actual cost/WDV of the block of assets by the grant as provided in Explanation 10 to section 43(1) and ICDS-VII and then compute depreciation accordingly. Because the AO had neither added the grant to income nor adjusted depreciation or WDV, the assessment order was held

Precious Bjuildtech Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 66/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mazhar Akram, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

Besides, to provide certainty for tax purposes, the CBDT had, in terms of section 145(2) of the Act, inter-alia, notified (on 29.09.2016) ICDS-III Page 8 of 16 (Income Computation & Disclosure Standard) relating to construction contracts. But the AO has not examined the case w.r.t. ICDS guidelines

M/S. Kolte-Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune vs. PCIT - 4, Pune

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

ITA 1030/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 41Section 41(1)

following issues: 2 “1. Stock Valuation 2. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section 3. High Creditors / liabilities 4. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment 5. High interest expenditure / finance costs” 3. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.09.2022 accepting

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

that Section 43CB is not applicable merely because the assessee is a real estate developer and not a contractor, without appreciating that as per ICDS and ICAI Guidance Note, the substance of the transaction and method of revenue recognition are applicable to real estate developers under similar principles ... follow percentage completion method from AY 2017-18 onwards in view of section 43CB, as well as in terms of Income Computation Disclosure Standards (ICDS-III) for construction contractors. In this respect, it is important to reproduce the provisions contained in section 43CB for ready reference: "Computation of income from

M/S. Suravi Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3702/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee included interest paid on capital to the partners, interest paid to the creditors and other miscellaneous expenses were also capitalised as per ICDS-IX. However, no income was offered to tax in the return filed for the past 3 assessment years. The Ld.AO further observed that, the assessee shown

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

Athena Karnal Solar Power Pvt Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3126/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Athena Karnal Solar Power Vs. Acit/Dcit Private Limited Circle 1(1) J5/132, Third Floor, Rajouri Gurgaon Garden, New Delhi Pan: Aaoca1340E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ayushgarg, Ca & Sh. Devesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order

CWIP) in audited financial of F.Y 2017-18. As per the Assessee the said treatment of interest income is in line with provision of ICDS-V as prescribed under the income tax Act, 1961. The claim of the Assessee has been turned down by the lower authorities and made addition/confirmed

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (As Sucessor to Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited Which in Turn Is Sucessor to Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4964/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 28Section 37

case of assessee, thereafter, was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the following issues i. Duty Drawback ii. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment iii. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income. 4. In due course, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2019. Thereafter notice

Landmark Developers, Satna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Katni

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Landmark Developers, Vs. National E-Assessment Centre Blooms Campus, N.H. 75, Panna Road, Satna-485001, M.P. Pan:Aaefl2527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.02.2025 In Which The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Under Section143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) On 14.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That, The Assessment Order Has Been Passed By Nfac & No Designation Of Ao Is Mentioned In The Assessment Order Which Is Illegal & Unjustified. 2. That, The Digital Signature In The Assessment Order Are Not Verified & It Does Not Amount To Signing Of Assessment Order By Ao. Hence, The Whole Assessment Order Deserves To Be Set Aside. 3. That, The Ld. Cit Appeal Is Unjustified In Holding The Addition Of Rs. 30,03,163.00 By Applying Sec. 43Cb Of The Act Without The Considering The Fact That Same Is Not Applicable To The Project Started Prior To 01.04.2017. 4. That Sec 43Cb Is Applicable Only Where There Agreement Exist Between The Land Owner & Developer Whereas In The Present Case The Assessee Firm Itself Carrying

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

completed, it was to be recognized based on the method regularly followed by the assessee in accordance with the ICDS Standards notified by the Central Government w.e.f. 1.04.2015. However, when the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide the tower-wise details of cost incurred and revenue recognized till ... should not be assessed under the percentage completion methods in accordance with the 5 A.Y. 2018-19 Landmark Developers income computation and disclosure standards (ICDS) notified under sub section (2) of section 145. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed and the orders

Jubilant Generics Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1)(1), G.B. Nagar

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

ITA 2004/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

Rule 10CB of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, the ground no. 7-12 are disposed of. 24 ITA No. 2004/Del/2022 Jubilant Generics Ltd. ICDS adjustment (ground no.13): 32. The next issue is in respect of adjustment made in the processing made under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 366/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

Circular 10/2017 dated 23rd March, 2017 which were notified in the light of certain judicial pronouncements and it specifically mentioned that the provision of ICDS shall be applicable to the transactional issues dealt therein in relation to assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. 3. On the facts ... taxation. The ITA No.364 & 366/SRT/2025/AY 2020-21 & 2018-19 & Co. No.11/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Sahajanand Medical Technologies Ltd. treatment is not in line with the ICDS provisions notified u/s 145(2) of the Act. He issued show cause to the assessee, requiring it to furnish justification as to why the foreign

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 364/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

Munjal Auto Industries Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

ITA 271/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 80G

total income of Rs.37,32,33,850/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verification of deductions under Chapter VI-A, ICDS adjustments, deduction u/s 80IA/80IAB/80IC/10AA and claim of other deductions in Schedule 4 BP. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and requisite details

M/S. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure (Panipat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2409/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT

M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3935/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT