← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)13,466 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

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.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)

Jayesh Dahyabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 91/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 91/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Jayesh Dahyabhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner 101, Saurin Tower (Ravi), Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Vasna Bus Stop, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri B T Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजूनाथा. जी, लेखा सद

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजूनाथा. जी, लेखा सद

Income Tax Officer-42(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Ravindra G Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2565/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer - Vs. Ravindra G. Chitalia, 42(1)(4), A/604, Saileela, Above Room No. 718, Kautilya Vijaya Bank, Anand Bhavan, Bkc, Nagar, Dahisar (East) Mumbai – 400051 Maharashtra – 400068 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepc4939Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : S. Arunkumar Respondent By : Debiz Bhusal Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This E-Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) For A.Y. 2010-191. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & In Law By Giving Partial Relief To The Assessee By Reducing The Addition / Disallowance To 5% Of The Impugned Non-Genuine / Bogus Purchases As Against The Addition / Disallowance @12.5% Made By The Assessing Officer By Relying On. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & In Law By Reducing The Disallowance @ 5% Of The Impugned Bogus Purchases By Relying On The Judgment Dated 06 02 2019 Of The Jurisdictional Itat In The Case Of The This Assessee For The A.Y 2009- 10 Which Was Not Accepted By The Revenue & Further Appeal Was Filed It Is Submitted In This Regard That In The Said Itat Judgment On Identical Facts It Was Held By Hon'Ble Tribunal That Disallowance @12.5% Was At Higher Rale Going By The Nature Of Business Of The Assessee (Trading In Various Products Of Iron & Steel) & Also For The Reason That The Assessee Has Also Paid Vat Element On The Impugned Bogus Purchases Without

For Appellant: S. ArunkumarFor Respondent: Debiz Bhusal
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

P a g e | 1 ITO-42(1)(4) Vs. Ravindra G. Chitalia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Stonex India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1784/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

Hari Narayan Meena, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 2(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 56/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Which Was Being Handled By The Earlier Authorized Representative & The Information & Details Of The Case Had Been Provided To The Assessee Recently Only.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)
Section 143(3)

ara aitcita after, cage =aradis, aayR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR So Va. Mates, = wees

Knowledgehut Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1051/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Knowledge Hut Solutions Pvt. Ltd., C/O. P Murali & Co., The Deputy Chartered Commissioner Accountants, Of Income Tax, 6-3-655/2/3, Circle – 4(3)(1), Somajiguda, Bangalore. Vs. Karnataka – 560 102. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Shanu Kumar, Vasant Kunj vs. ITO Ward 71(5), Civic Centre

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

ITA 3603/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh

DCIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi vs. Prakash Industries Ltd, Hissar

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1928/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 234B

This intimation was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) who set aside the order holding that after section 143(3) of the Act, section 143(1) cannot be done and the Revenue was not in appeal. Therefore, this order has attained finality. 13. Subsequently, after search assessment u/s 153A

DCIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi vs. Prakash Industries Ltd, Hissar

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1927/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 234B

This intimation was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) who set aside the order holding that after section 143(3) of the Act, section 143(1) cannot be done and the Revenue was not in appeal. Therefore, this order has attained finality. 13. Subsequently, after search assessment u/s 153A

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. New India City Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1738/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. New India City Developers Central Circle-31, Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi B-44/Ii, Floor Jangpura, New Delhi-110014 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaack0016B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 194CSection 196Section 271CSection 40

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3811/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3663/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Sh. Pawan Kumar, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ahuja, Advocate and Shri Pawan Kumar, AssesseFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

same date disclosing the foreign sourced income and eligibility for tax relief. The returned income was processed by CPC, Bangalore and intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 18/03/2021 wherein the returned income was accepted, however, the foreign tax relief amounting to Rs 86,35,117/- was not allowed ... record of the Department well before the processing of the return of income by CPC and issue of intimation under section 143(1) dt. 18/03/2021. 7. It was submitted that while processing the return of income, the CPC Bangalore has not taken cognizance of Form No. 67 which was duly

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued........” Hence, the there was relevant and cogent material before the Ld. A.O before re- opening the assessement. The contention

Trimbak Konher Patil, Hubblli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

ITA 6/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Trimbak Konher Patil, Hubballi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

ITA 5/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Vinay Kulkarni, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Kohinoor Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-31(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3697/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhkohinoor Industrial Vs. Ito, Ward 31(2)(2), Premises Co-Op Society Kautilya Bhavan, Limited, Plot No.10, Cts Bandra, No. 67, Dindoshi Village, Mumbai – 400 051 Western Express Highway Goregaon East Maharashtra – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaak4970G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Kirit S. Sanghvi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 11.07.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Ctt(A) [Nfac, Delhi] Erred On Facts & In Law In Disallowing Rs.22,92,110/-Claimed As Deduction Under S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act 2. The Learned Cit(A) [Nfac, Delhi] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Order Passed Under S 154 Of The Act By Holding That There Was No Mistake Apparent From The Records 3. The Learned Cit(A) (Nfac, Delhi) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The View Of The Cpc That The Appellant Did Not Correctly Fill In Sch-Via For Claiming Deduction Under S 80P. Relief Claimed: The Appellant Be Allowed Deduction Of Rs.22,92,110/- Under S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Kirit S. SanghviFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

P a g e | 1 Kohinoor Industrial Premises Coop Society Ltd. vs. AO, Ward 31(2)(2) IN THE INCOME

Bharat Laxman Bhiwapurkar, Thane vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Thane

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

ITA 3413/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhbharat Laxman Vs. Ito, Ward 1(5), Bhiwapurkar, 204, Room No. 14, B Wing, Oxford, Regency Heights, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Azad Nagar, Kolshet, Road No. 16Z, Wagle, Thane - 400602 Ind. Estate, Thane-400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abnpb8487A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Subodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 03.08.2023 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Hon. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Inspite Of The Fact That There Was No Incriminating Material Pertaining To The Appellant With Regards To Alleged On-Money Paid For Purchase Of Flat From Cosmos Group & Therefore The Re-Opening Was In Absence Of Any Independent & Valid Belief On The Part Of The Id Ao That Any Income Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment. The Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Being Bad-In-Law, The Asst. Order Flowing Therefrom, Being The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Is Also Invalid & Bad In Law & Hence The Same May Be Quashed 2. The Hon Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 31,00,000/-, U/S 69 Of The 1.1 Act, 1961, As Unexplained Investment Towards Alleged On- Money Paid Towards Purchase Of Flat No. A-07, 7Th Floor, Twilight, Cosmos Horizon, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (W) To Cosmos Group, Ignoring The Contentions Of The Appellant That There Was No Incriminating

For Appellant: Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

P a g e | 1 Bharat Laxman Bhiwapurkar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC

M/S. Flexsin Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3003/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shyam M. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh