← All Phrases

“Section 37(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 37Section 37(1)4,308 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 37(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 37(1)

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.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

Judgments citing Section 37(1)

Jsp Projects (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 13, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

ITA 3643/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 127(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 63Section 65B

onus u/s 37(1) of the Act without pointing out any defect or shortcoming by conducting any independent enquiry. That, the provisions of section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable on facts of the case. Restriction of claim of TDS credit 9. That

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1823/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiady. Cit (Central Circle)-3(3) M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited 4Th Floor, Welspun House, Room No. 404, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400 051 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Delisle Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aabcm 4107 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Shri Ajay Nagpal Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Department, Arises Out Of Order Dated 17.01.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, Pertaining To A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Department Has Challenged The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.23,47,354/-, Being Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) On Account Of Alleged Non-Genuine Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

contentions of the assessee. There is absolutely no infirmity in the findings and the decision arrived at by the ld.CIT(A).Section 37(1) of the Act is a residual provision that allows businesses to deduct revenue expenditures not specifically covered under Sections 30 to 36, provided they meet certain ... personal expense and must be incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of the business or profession. To claim a deduction under Section 37(1), the following cumulative conditions must be met: -The expenditure must be revenue in nature, not a capital expenditure . -It must not be a personal expense

ACIT CC 4 3, Mumbai vs. Maersk Line India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6166/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kant, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 206ASection 250Section 40Section 80G

incurred CSR expenses amounting to Rs. 23,67,243/- during the year under consideration. However, the assessee disallowed the same suo moto under section 37 (1) of the Act while computing its income. It was further noticed that the assessee claimed an amount ... said requirement. Further the Appellant itself has added back the same expenditure to the total income as per the provision of section 37(1) of the Act. Further it is noted that the appellant has claimed the said expenditure u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. has added

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee claimed deduction of IBNER under section 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,45,04,77,112/-. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the said amount represented ... issue pertains to the disallowance of reinsurance premium paid to foreign reinsurers. The Ld. AO disallowed the said expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act and further held that no tax had been deducted at source, thereby invoking the provisions of section

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 1450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee claimed deduction of IBNER under section 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,45,04,77,112/-. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the said amount represented ... issue pertains to the disallowance of reinsurance premium paid to foreign reinsurers. The Ld. AO disallowed the said expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act and further held that no tax had been deducted at source, thereby invoking the provisions of section

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (Tagic), Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Zaheer Ahmed Syed, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., CC-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 410/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

assessee and therefore, if donation is not allowable under Section 80G or under CSR expenditure, then it can be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 7. The learned CIT-DR for the Revenue ... assessee that, if at all donations are not allowable under Section 80G or CSR initiative, then it should be allowed as expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act, as business expenditure, in our considered view, the assessee has failed to prove the nexus between the expenditure incurred

Vimal Trading Company, Madurai vs. Non Corporate Cirle - 1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2958/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 37(1)

exclusively for business purposes, are supported by verifiable bank payments, and pertain fully to the relevant year, and hence are allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in not considering the practical business reality where

Girish Raghavan, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-26(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6955/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blegirish Raghavan, Acit 26(1), 201-B Eternia, 1, Mumbai Vs. Hiranandani Gardens Mumbai 400 076. Pan : Ahcpr2792R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

Rs.2,04,71,565/-. 7. The second disallowance is towards hotel charges and travel expenses of Rs.6,04,043/- under Section 37(1) of the Act. 8. In appeal, the First Appellate Authority has found that the appellant has not established that the said amount has been paid ... towards unclaimed wages. He, therefore, submitted that the disallowance could not have been made. 13. Insofar as the disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Act is concerned, it is submitted that no such ad hoc disallowance could be made for which reliance is placed on the following decisions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. P N Memorial Neuro Centre and Research Institute Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 2228/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar

M/S R. S. Shetye & Bros, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Panaji

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir - 2(1)(1), Surat vs. Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 908/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Akshay M Modi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 155Section 37(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.88,51,47,307/-made under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce a copy of the order(s) or other legal instruments issued ... that as regard to ground no.1, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.88,51,47,307/-made under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce a copy of the order(s) or other legal instruments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat vs. Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 901/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Akshay M Modi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 155Section 37(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.88,51,47,307/-made under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce a copy of the order(s) or other legal instruments issued ... that as regard to ground no.1, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.88,51,47,307/-made under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce a copy of the order(s) or other legal instruments

DCIT-4(1), Indore vs. Maral Overseas Ltd, Khargone

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 571/IND/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 40A(9)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Shreeram Constructions, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 481/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 37(1)Section 40

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

ITO, Ward-2(1), Begusarai vs. Manish Kumar Motani, Khagaria, Bihar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 442/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

should be brought to tax. The entire amount was not to be disallowed u/s 40A(3). Relevant head note is quoted as under: "[Section 37(1), read with sections 40A(3) and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Business expenditure Allowability of (Business expenditure) Assessment year 2009-10-Assessee

R.K.Infracorp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 363/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.235/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. R.K. Infracorp Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecr0071P (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri M V Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr (Hybrid Mode) आ.अपी. सं/Ita No.363/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. R.K. Infracorp Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecr0071P (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. (Respondent) Shri M V Prasad, Ca Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 25/02/2026 Pronouncement: 2

For Appellant: Shri M V Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 37(1)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. R.K.Infracorp Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 235/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.235/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. R.K. Infracorp Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecr0071P (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri M V Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: | Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr (Hybrid Mode) आ.अपी. सं/Ita No.363/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. R.K. Infracorp Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecr0071P (Appellant) Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M V Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 25/02/2026 Pronouncement: 2

For Appellant: Shri M V Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 37(1)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. Shree Ganesh Edibles Pvt. Ltd., Khanna

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 308/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

1 ITA Nos.307 & 308/Chandi/2025 AY: 2019-20 & 2022-23 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING