← All Phrases

“Section 201(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 201Section 201(1)1,701 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 201(1) is Kourani v. Union OF India (83 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 1,708 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 201(1)

Kourani v. Union OF India
83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
1,708
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI
289 CTR 602 · 2016 · High Court
844
citing judgments

A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court
576
citing judgments

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT
74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT
465
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015. Levying late fees for periods prior to this date is not permissible.

Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India
63 Taxmann.com 243 · 2015 · High Court
397
citing judgments

The imposition of fees for late filing of TDS/TCS returns prior to the Finance Act, 2015 amendments was not illegal, and the Rajasthan High Court found no justification to interfere with such compensatory fees.

CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.
377 ITR 635 · 2015 · High Court
369
citing judgments

The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, is curative and applies retrospectively from April 1, 2005. Consequently, if the recipient of a payment has filed their return and paid taxes on the amount from which tax was not deducted at source, the payer's expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia).

Judgments citing Section 201(1)

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Wadala Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)4, Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2380/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

Citizen Credit Cooperative Bank Limited excess of Rs.10,000/- had been paid which revealed that the assessee was a defaulter in terms of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative bank engaged in banking business having several branches. The TAN under

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Turner Road Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2379/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

Citizen Credit Cooperative Bank Limited excess of Rs.10,000/- had been paid which revealed that the assessee was a defaulter in terms of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative bank engaged in banking business having several branches. The TAN under

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Malad Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2378/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

Citizen Credit Cooperative Bank Limited excess of Rs.10,000/- had been paid which revealed that the assessee was a defaulter in terms of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative bank engaged in banking business having several branches. The TAN under

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Santacruz Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) 1 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2377/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

been paid vis-à-vis TDS deducted u/s.194A during F.Y.2015-16were examined which revealed that the assessee was a defaulter in terms of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative bank engaged in banking business having several branches. The TAN under consideration

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited ( Borivili Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2376/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

been paid vis-à-vis TDS deducted u/s.194A during F.Y.2015-16were examined which revealed that the assessee was a defaulter in terms of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative bank engaged in banking business having several branches. The TAN under consideration

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Vakola Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)4, Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2375/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

been paid vis-à-vis TDS deducted u/s.194A during F.Y.2015-16were examined which revealed that the assessee was a defaulter in terms of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative bank engaged in banking business having several branches. The TAN under consideration

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited ( Mulund Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2374/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

parties to whom interest in excess of Rs.10,000/- had been paid which reveals that the assessee was a defaulter in terms of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.1 The assessee is a Co-operative bank engaged in banking business having several branches. The TAN under

District Project Livelihood College Society, Gariyabandh vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur

ITA 273/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 271, 272 & 273/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीअ

District Project Livelihood College Society, Gariyabandh (C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur, Aykar Bhawan

ITA 272/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 271, 272 & 273/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीअ

District Project Livelihood College Society, Gariyabandh(Cg) vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur

ITA 271/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 271, 272 & 273/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीअ

Kshipra Dhawan, Saharanpur vs. DCIT Cen Cir Ddn, Dehradun

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

ITA 171/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

held that in absence of the same, the case of the assessee does not fall under the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act and he therefore confirmed the disallowance of Rs.17,51,912/- being 30% of the interest paid by the assessee to the tow NBFCs ... respect to amount of Rs.17,51,912/- disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and not on account of the provisions of section 201(1) of the Act, wherein, for non- deduction of TDS, the assessee is treated as deemed to be an assessee in default in respect

Kshipra Dhawan, Saharanpur vs. DCIT Cen Cir Ddn, Dehradun

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

ITA 170/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

held that in absence of the same, the case of the assessee does not fall under the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act and he therefore confirmed the disallowance of Rs.17,51,912/- being 30% of the interest paid by the assessee to the tow NBFCs ... respect to amount of Rs.17,51,912/- disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and not on account of the provisions of section 201(1) of the Act, wherein, for non- deduction of TDS, the assessee is treated as deemed to be an assessee in default in respect

Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Saharanpur vs. DCIT-ACIT- Cen Cir Ddn, Dehradun

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

ITA 157/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 44A

held that in absence of the same, the case of the assessee does not fall under the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act and he therefore confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,58,559/- being 30% of the interest paid by the assessee to the tow NBFCs ... respect to amount of Rs.1,58,559/- disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and not on account of the provisions of section 201(1) of the Act, wherein, for non-deduction of TDS, the assessee is treated as deemed to be an assessee in default in respect

Vardhman Polytex Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT(TDS), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1090/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. Though Notices Were Issued Electronically Through The E-Filing Portal, The Assessee Contended That Such Notices Were Neither Brought To Their Knowledge Nor Received Through Any Alternative Means Such As Email Or Physical Intimation. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte. It Was Further Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Legal In Nature & Does Not Require Examination Of Disputed Facts; Hence, The Matter May Be Adjudicated On Merits Without The Necessity Of A Remand To The Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 44A

year 2015-16. 2. The primary grievance of the assessee is against the confirmation of the demand of Rs.15,90,081/- raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, arising out of alleged non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C(6) in respect of freight ... statements (Form 26Q) filed with the Department. 4.2 The Ld. AO treated the assessee as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) and levied consequential interest under Section 201(1A). Relying on backend data and ITRs of some transporters, the Ld. AO concluded that certain transporters, including the aforementioned

Sri Venkateswara Cine Chitra LLP, Hyderabad vs. ITO., TDS Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 664/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 201(1)

filed an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the order passed on 31.03.2023 by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2016–17. However, during the appellate proceedings before

Mahayogi Vemana Souharda Pattina Sahakari Sangha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 829/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 194ASection 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

ITO, Ludhiana vs. M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 800/CHANDI/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

ITO, Ludhiana vs. M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/CHANDI/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 988/CHANDI/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

ITO -I(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 965/CHANDI/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON