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.

31 results for “TDS”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai72Chennai48Bangalore42Delhi31Karnataka21Indore10Dehradun9Pune9Kolkata7Visakhapatnam6Lucknow6Jaipur5Hyderabad5Panaji5Amritsar4Allahabad4Patna3Rajkot3Ahmedabad2Chandigarh2Nagpur2Raipur1Cochin1SC1Surat1Jabalpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)27Section 271B22Section 144C20Section 44A18Penalty18Section 14317Section 271G16Section 14815Section 271(1)(c)15Addition to Income

VRINDA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-26(4), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5568/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2020AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

271B may be levied. Further , Rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules has prescribed the form for filing the Tax Audit Report and other requirements. Further, Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 has prescribed filing of Audit Report along with the return of income. The relevant rule is reproduced as under: “[Return of income and return

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

11
TDS7
Permanent Establishment6
ITA 2318/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

TDS return has been filed by all three Income sources after deducting the applicable Tax and issuing the certificates for the same to the Assessee. Assesse filed the return as soon as received the notice for filing the same, paid the balance tax liability as assessed by the department, paid further the Interest on delayed payment of Income

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

TDS 5188 Sundry Balances written off 70 Net Profit 170416 The assessee JV had filed its ITR declaring total income of Rs. 1,75,600/- (Rs. 1,70,416/- plus Rs.5,188/- being the amount disallowable). The AO had passed the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) in the status of AOP, determining the total income

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

TDS 5188 Sundry Balances written off 70 Net Profit 170416 The assessee JV had filed its ITR declaring total income of Rs. 1,75,600/- (Rs. 1,70,416/- plus Rs.5,188/- being the amount disallowable). The AO had passed the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) in the status of AOP, determining the total income

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4849/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

TDS credit of Rs.4,485,601 as claimed in the return of income. 7. Ground 7: Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act disregarding the fact that appellant is a non-resident and interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 317/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

TDS credit of Rs.4,485,601 as claimed in the return of income. 7. Ground 7: Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act disregarding the fact that appellant is a non-resident and interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

TDS credit of Rs.4,485,601 as claimed in the return of income. 7. Ground 7: Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act disregarding the fact that appellant is a non-resident and interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground

ULO SYSTEMS LLC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5279/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

TDS credit of Rs.4,485,601 as claimed in the return of income. 7. Ground 7: Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act disregarding the fact that appellant is a non-resident and interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6018/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

TDS credit of Rs.4,485,601 as claimed in the return of income. 7. Ground 7: Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act disregarding the fact that appellant is a non-resident and interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

TDS and was not allowable; ii) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had not been initiated; and iii) Penalty under Section 271A and 271B

JASWANT SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-56(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 4152/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Jaspal Singh Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271BSection 44A

TDS to Rs. 3,40,619/- and receipts/earning taken from this amount which has not been disclosed in the return of income of assessee. The AO after issue statutory notices also issued notice to the assessee and asked him to furnish the reconciliation of income viz-a-viz receipts as per Form 26AS traces for the year under consideration. Assessee

M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

ITA 1909/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT
Section 143Section 144C

TDS has been deducted on such payments. 9. That the Ld. AO has erred in mechanically charging interest under section 234D of the Act without appreciating the fact that the refund as determined in the intimation under section I43(i) of the Act was not granted to the appellant. 10. That the Ld. AO has erred in mechanically initiating

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JDSU INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 1478/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

TDS as per Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS. Levy of Interest 24. The learned AO has erred in charging interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act. ITA 1483/Del/16 Viavi Solutions India P Ltd. vs. JCIT A.Y. 2011-12 ITA 1478/Del/2016 DCIT vs. JDSU India P Ltd. A.Y. 2011-12 ITA 231/Del/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India

M/S VIAVI SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 231/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

TDS as per Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS. Levy of Interest 24. The learned AO has erred in charging interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act. ITA 1483/Del/16 Viavi Solutions India P Ltd. vs. JCIT A.Y. 2011-12 ITA 1478/Del/2016 DCIT vs. JDSU India P Ltd. A.Y. 2011-12 ITA 231/Del/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India

VIAVI SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY JDSU INDIA PVT. LTD),GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 1483/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

TDS as per Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS. Levy of Interest 24. The learned AO has erred in charging interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act. ITA 1483/Del/16 Viavi Solutions India P Ltd. vs. JCIT A.Y. 2011-12 ITA 1478/Del/2016 DCIT vs. JDSU India P Ltd. A.Y. 2011-12 ITA 231/Del/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India

SH. TARUN ARORA,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4989/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv., MsFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

TDS Certificate, if any and (v) power of attorney in favour of authorized representative. The information called for should be furnished to my office at Room No.361, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi by 09.08.2016 at 11.30 AM.  This is also an intimation for the change of incumbent.” 7 I.T.A. No.1154/DEL/2019 9. Thus, from a bare

MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

271B and 271AA read with section 274 of the Act. 9. The Assessee prays for leave to add, alter, amend and/ or' modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4. Ground Nos 1 to 4 pertain to the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. 5. Brief facts of the issue are that

NARESH CHAND RANA,SONEPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 2, SONEPAT

In the result, the assessee gets relief of Rs

ITA 2355/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Bhatla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sweta Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 263(1)Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

271B is illegal and unjustified: a. The work of data collection performed by the assessee along with his employees consists of data collection through survey conducted in accordance with direction and requirement mentioned in work order issuedby the party. b. Assessing authority could not and did not produce any such notification incorporating the services rendered in the present case being

HANISH SINGLA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and quashed the reopening of the assessment

ITA 1740/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: For RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 40

271B. Since the interest on borrowed capital amounting to Rs. 11,13,955/- was claimed as deduction through statement of taxable income, assessee was required to deduct TDS on such payment. As the payment was made out of books, assessee had not deducted TDS on such interest which needed to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Omission

YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GREATER NOIDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- APPEAL, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2489/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalyamuna Expressway Cit(Appeal), Industrial Development Ghaziabad. Authority, Greator Noida, Vs. First Floor, Commercial Complex, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Aaalt0341D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(46)Section 12ASection 147(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Local Authority and constituted in terms of section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The assessee is granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act in terms of the order