← All Phrases

“Section 148(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 148Section 148(2)423 judgments

CHANDRANI COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 665/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

AMPI FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the Bench that the re-opening of

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

ANNAKODIRAJ,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUNELVELI

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

ITA 4121/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4121/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Annakodiraj, The Income Tax Officer, 93, Kankanankinaru, Vs. Ward 1, Balapathiraramapuram Po, Tirunelveli Vk Pudur Tk, Tirunelveli – 627 953. Pan: Bydpa 7546K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

proceedings, have always been upheld by Courts. But, where the reopening of assessment cannot stand on the strength of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2), the Revenue cannot seek to justify the reopening, by finding some point or the other post-facto after the reopening of assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHANTI DEVI SOMANI, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of revenue as well as cross objections of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2503/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHANDU SOMANI, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of revenue as well as cross objections of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2029/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

SAMA NARASIMHA REDDY AND SAMA SARASWATHI REDDY GARDENS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 to AY

ITA 1335/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1332, 1333, 1334 &1335/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sama Narasimha Reddy & Vs. Dcit, Sama Saraswathi Reddy Central Circle-1(2), Gardens, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aajfs7086H (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/02/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Dated 15/07/2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (“A.Y”) 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Respectively & Learned Cit(A)’S Orders Dated 04/07/2025, Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

failed to appreciate the fact that the AO had failed to record and communicate reasons for reopening, violating the provisions of section 148(2) of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that the AO, without having any incriminating material to suggest that income has escaped

SAMA NARASIMHA REDDY AND SAMA SARASWATHI REDDY GARDENS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 to AY

ITA 1334/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1332, 1333, 1334 &1335/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sama Narasimha Reddy & Vs. Dcit, Sama Saraswathi Reddy Central Circle-1(2), Gardens, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aajfs7086H (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/02/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Dated 15/07/2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (“A.Y”) 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Respectively & Learned Cit(A)’S Orders Dated 04/07/2025, Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

failed to appreciate the fact that the AO had failed to record and communicate reasons for reopening, violating the provisions of section 148(2) of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that the AO, without having any incriminating material to suggest that income has escaped

SAMA NARASIMHA REDDY AND SAMA SARASWATHI REDDY GARDENS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 to AY

ITA 1333/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1332, 1333, 1334 &1335/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sama Narasimha Reddy & Vs. Dcit, Sama Saraswathi Reddy Central Circle-1(2), Gardens, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aajfs7086H (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/02/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Dated 15/07/2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (“A.Y”) 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Respectively & Learned Cit(A)’S Orders Dated 04/07/2025, Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

failed to appreciate the fact that the AO had failed to record and communicate reasons for reopening, violating the provisions of section 148(2) of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that the AO, without having any incriminating material to suggest that income has escaped

SAMA NARASIMHA REDDY AND SAMA SARASWATHI REDDY GARDENS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 to AY

ITA 1332/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1332, 1333, 1334 &1335/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sama Narasimha Reddy & Vs. Dcit, Sama Saraswathi Reddy Central Circle-1(2), Gardens, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aajfs7086H (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/02/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Dated 15/07/2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (“A.Y”) 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Respectively & Learned Cit(A)’S Orders Dated 04/07/2025, Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

failed to appreciate the fact that the AO had failed to record and communicate reasons for reopening, violating the provisions of section 148(2) of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that the AO, without having any incriminating material to suggest that income has escaped

SWETA ORGANISERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 256/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.256/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम/ Sweta Organisers Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit V/S. 4/1644, Vakharia Mills Circle-2(1)(1) Compound Surat – 395 002 Begampura Faisawadi – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcs 8770 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/12/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148(2)Section 4

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सूरत "ायपीठ, सूरत । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT [conducted through Hybrid mode] "ी संजय

KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2727/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

fact that Additional CIT\naddressed a letter to the ITO stating as under:-\n\"In view of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the IT Act,\napproval for issue of notice under Section 148 is hereby given in the\nabove-mentioned case, you are, accordingly directed to issue

LABH COMBINES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2382/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

JIYA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2142/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250

fact that Additional CIT addressed\na letter to the ITO stating as under:-\n\"In view of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the IT Act, approval for issue\nof notice under Section 148 is hereby given in the above-mentioned case, you are,\naccordingly directed to issue

GULMOHAR TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA\nBEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

HARI SINGH,RAISEN vs. ITO RAISEN, RAISEN

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

ITA 536/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshihari Singh, Ito, Raisen बनाम/ S/O Sh. Dhara Singh, 86,Vill- Vs. Semri Khurd, Tehsil- Sultanpur, Raisen,Bhopal, Mp (Pan: Aiaps1986M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

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

BHAVIKA BHUWALKA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2), NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8258/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Bhavika Bhuwalka Vs. Ito C055, Iind Floor, Preet Ward-5 (1) (2) Vihar, Delhi Noida Pan No. Amnpb8209R Appellant Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

light of the fact that Additional CIT addressed a letter to the ITO stating as under:- "In view of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the IT Act, approval for issue of notice under Section 148 is hereby given in the above-mentioned case, you are, accordingly directed

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

reasons as furnished vide letter dated 28th June 2007 cannot be treated as reasons actually recorded by the Assessing Officer as per section 148 (2) and as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). Thus, the Assessing Officer has failed to furnish ... perusal of the above, we note that the Coordinate Benches of Mumbai Tribunal clearly held that the Assessing Officer, as per section 148(2) of the Act and as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (supra), has to furnish

NEHA TAMRAKAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, the “Impugned Order” is set aside as & by

ITA 175/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshineha Tamrakar, Ito -5(1), बनाम/ 177 A Sector, Indrapuri Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Ajtpt6475G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 129Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 246Section 250

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

SIMATAJVAR YUSUFKHAN KHAN,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5), VADODARA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 243/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL

SIMATAJVAR YUSUFKHAN KHAN,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5), VADODARA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 242/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL

Showing 1–20 of 423 · Page 1 of 22

...