“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(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.

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. 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.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

1,967

citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More

82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court

1,579

citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

M/S. Rukmini Educational Charitable Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

ITA 2108/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

M/S. Rukmini Educational Charitable Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

ITA 2107/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Gautam Jyoti Co Operative Hsg Society, Girgaon Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1939/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh Adv. and Shivali SFor Respondent: 29.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151ASection 234ASection 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 07, Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shriti Verma, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4486/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 07, Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shriti Verma, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4485/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 07, Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shriti Verma, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4484/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 07, Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shriti Verma, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4483/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Kunal Rajendra Mashru, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Junagadh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 387/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.387/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kunal Rajendra Mashru C/O. Pradip Corporation, D-3, Jeevan Jyot, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai – 400001, Maharashtra Pan : Afhpm1835K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1, Junagadh : (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Choksy, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai (In Short 'Cit(A)'), Dated 29.05.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 07.11.2019.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Choksy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 10(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Suviksha Health Care Private Limited, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, National E-Assesment Centre

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

ITA 394/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Page | 2 ITA No. 394/PAT/2025 Suviksha Health Care Private Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 the assessee was also served with a notice under section 142(1) calling for details regarding the nature of business and the transactions giving rise to the issue under scrutiny. The assessee had filed its reply

Rajan Budhisagar Singh, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-4, Navsari

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

ITA 13/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajan Budhisagar Singh The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 506, Priti Complex, Ward – 4, Navsari Vs. Shital Park Society, Opp. Jalkamal Society, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahkps9432M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr)With Shri Kevin Langaliya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40ASection 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 111, Surat vs. Mukesh Arjanbhai Maniya, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Mukesh Arjanbhai Maniya बनाम/ Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), C-303, Afil Tower, L.H. Road, Vs. Surat, Room No.108, 1St Varachha, Surat-395 006 Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afepm 7227 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Sh. Krishna Kumar Poddar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri

Section 250Section 270A

consideration. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 18.08.2018. Notice under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 along with questionnaire was issued on 19.09.2019 asking the assessee to furnish certain information / details. In response thereof

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

days from the service of notice. In response to the said notice, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Notices under section 142(1) along with query letter were issued on 26.08.2019, 28.09.2019 and 25.10.2019,but no compliance was made. Subsequently the case was transferred from ITO Ward ... Ward 2(2) Jaipur under section 127 of the Act by order issued by the Pr.CIT- 1, Jaipur. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) was issued on 09.11.2019 along with the show cause under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 fixing the case for hearing on 18.11.2019, which

Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 456/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, As Thereby Assessment Order Dated 19.05.2021, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, Has Been Sustained.

For Appellant: Sh. Rajednra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks

Krya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited Deoli, Deoli Tonk vs. ITO Tonk, Tonk

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

ITA 135/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Mrs. S. K. Gogra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234aSection 250Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Responce Renewable Energy Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1426/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1426/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Response Renewable Energy Ltd.……………...………………..….……….Appellant 3Rd Floor, 76, Pandit Purushottam Roy Street, Kol-7. [Pan: Aaccn5941J] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata …...……..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 03, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 21.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Which Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring Total Income Of ₹84,770 & Book Profit Under Section 115Jb Of ₹82,667. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. During The Course Of Assessment, Information Was Received From The Directorate Of Income Tax (Investigation) That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To ₹33,00,000 In Its Bank Account During The Period Of Demonetisation Announced By The Government Of India In November 2016. This Information Was Also Reflected In The Assessee’S 360° Profile. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Further Notices Under Section 142(1) Calling Upon The Assessee To Explain The Source Of The Said Cash Deposits. In Response, The Assessee Submitted That The Cash Deposits Were Made

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 142(1)

November 2016. This information was also reflected in the assessee’s 360° profile. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued further notices under section 142(1) calling upon the assessee to explain the source of the said cash deposits. In response, the assessee submitted that the cash deposits were made I.T.A

Rajnee Dong, Siliguri vs. Income Tax Officier, Ward Three, Darjeeling

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

ITA 1065/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Rajnee Dong Income Tax Officer Grace Arjun Homes, Salabari, Ward Three, Darjeeling, Near Monestry Road, Darjiling-734101, Vs. Siliguri-734002, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajipd2993C Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, DR

Section 148

requiring the assessee to furnish her return of income. In response, the assessee filed her return of income. Subsequently, notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued calling for further details and explanations in connection with the income returned. However, the assessee failed to properly

Saroj Vilas Gandhi (Through Beena Arun Shah Legal Heir of Deceased ), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5040/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarsaroj Vilas Gandhi(Through V/S. Income Tax Officer Bina Arun Shah, The Legal Heir Of बनाम Ward-22(3)(2), Piramal Deceased) Chambers, Lalbaug Parel, 601/211, 6Th Floor, Satyam Mumbai – 400012, Building, Opp. Odeon Maharashtra Swimming Pool, Rn Narkar Marg, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai–400075, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpg8877C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Patwardhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr. AR)

Section 144Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Matrix Automotive, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2607/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Matrix Automotive Income Tax Officer-Ward Shop No. 1,2,3,4 Ground Floor, 41(3)(2), Mumbai Business Classic, Chincholi Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, G Block Bunder Road, Malad West, Bkc, Gilban Area, Bandra Mumbai 400064 Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 Pan No. Aaxfm5446P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH

Satya Narain Bari, New Delhi vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 20, New Delhi, Jhandewalan New Delhi

Appeal is hereby partly allowed

ITA 296/DEL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Satya Narain Bari, J324B, J Block 4, Pusta Central Circle-20, Kartar Nagar, Jagjit Nagar New Delhi S.O., East Delhi, Delhi Pan: Bbbpb2490Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 115BSection 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI