BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

26 results for “disallowance”+ Section 292Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi317Mumbai127Bangalore112Chennai92Jaipur81Hyderabad78Indore41Kolkata33Pune32Chandigarh26Surat25Ahmedabad18Nagpur17Rajkot15Visakhapatnam13Allahabad6Jodhpur5Lucknow3Agra2Raipur2Panaji1Dehradun1Cochin1Guwahati1Cuttack1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income26Section 143(3)23Section 143(2)22Section 69A20Penalty12Section 14810Section 148B10Section 12710Section 271A10Section 153A

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED 2000-1A, SUKHDEV NAGAR FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 679/CHANDI/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

disallowed without giving specific finding. 14. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter any ground or grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 6. With the consent of the parties, the case of the assessee in ITA No.633/Chd/2023 was taken as the lead case wherein the brief facts of the case are that

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

10
Limitation/Time-bar8
Unexplained Investment3

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 663/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

disallowed without giving specific finding. 14. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter any ground or grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 6. With the consent of the parties, the case of the assessee in ITA No.633/Chd/2023 was taken as the lead case wherein the brief facts of the case are that

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 668/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

disallowed without giving specific finding. 14. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter any ground or grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 6. With the consent of the parties, the case of the assessee in ITA No.633/Chd/2023 was taken as the lead case wherein the brief facts of the case are that

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

292C of the Act. 11.7 The ld CIT(A) accordingly held that it is thus, established that the assessee firm has sold plot no. 10,11, 168 and 169 @ Rs. 6500-7000 per sq yard during the year under consideration. It is also logical to infer that when the consideration as per books of account (part of sales) has been

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

292C of the Act. 11.7 The ld CIT(A) accordingly held that it is thus, established that the assessee firm has sold plot no. 10,11, 168 and 169 @ Rs. 6500-7000 per sq yard during the year under consideration. It is also logical to infer that when the consideration as per books of account (part of sales) has been

M/S HEADMASTER SALOON PVT.LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 111/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253

disallow addition of whopping sum of Rs. 1,02,00,000/-. There is no material on record that immediately after the surrender letter dt. 04/03/2014 the assessee company retracted and / or withdrew the said letter. The Department did not put any obstacle on their path. Since it was a voluntary Act on their part. Since it was a voluntary

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 345/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 320/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 319/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

SH. GURMAL SINGH H NO R-18 NEW GRAIN MARKET NEAR JAIN HOSPITAL, JALANDHAR BYEPASS ROAD, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 209/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 40A(3)Section 69C

disallowance was sustained and therefore, addition of Rs.21,44,420/- is contrary to the finding given by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order in respect of issue of freight. 19. The next contention and submission is on addition of Rs.36,85,400/- relates to alleged unexplained expenditure of the assessee under Section 69C (Page 24 of impugned order

RANJANA KALTA,SHIMLA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1060/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

Section 271AAC. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete, modify or substitute any of the above grounds. 2. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. AR argued only on the merits of quantum additions and stated that the assessee is not pressing its respective legal grounds in all the appeals. Therefore, the respective legal grounds

RANJANA KUMARI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1056/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

Section 271AAC. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete, modify or substitute any of the above grounds. 2. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. AR argued only on the merits of quantum additions and stated that the assessee is not pressing its respective legal grounds in all the appeals. Therefore, the respective legal grounds

INDER KALTA,SHIMLA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1046/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

Section 271AAC. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete, modify or substitute any of the above grounds. 2. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. AR argued only on the merits of quantum additions and stated that the assessee is not pressing its respective legal grounds in all the appeals. Therefore, the respective legal grounds

KALTA LIQUORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1050/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

Section 271AAC. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete, modify or substitute any of the above grounds. 2. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. AR argued only on the merits of quantum additions and stated that the assessee is not pressing its respective legal grounds in all the appeals. Therefore, the respective legal grounds

INDER KALTA,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1047/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

Section 271AAC. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete, modify or substitute any of the above grounds. 2. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. AR argued only on the merits of quantum additions and stated that the assessee is not pressing its respective legal grounds in all the appeals. Therefore, the respective legal grounds