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.

18 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,190Mumbai2,022Bangalore1,040Chennai731Kolkata384Hyderabad309Indore277Pune269Ahmedabad256Chandigarh189Jaipur188Raipur181Cochin179Karnataka159Surat111Lucknow75Visakhapatnam60Nagpur57Rajkot55Cuttack52Amritsar35Jodhpur35Ranchi35Dehradun31Guwahati30Agra27Panaji18Telangana18Patna17Allahabad12SC11Kerala9Varanasi8Rajasthan5Calcutta5Jabalpur4Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana2J&K1

Key Topics

Section 20116Section 80I16Addition to Income14Section 25011Section 133A11Section 143(3)11Section 14A11TDS11Section 201(1)10Section 194A

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 73/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Hegde, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 205

TDS under Chapter XVII B and thus invocation of section 156 of the Act to levy a demand on the Appellant is totally misplaced and without any foundation. 6. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 191 and section 205 construct a mandate not to recover tax from the deductor in the event of failure

9
Survey u/s 133A8
Disallowance7

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

TDS compliances etc., and (e) collating of information of thirteen year old records from the merged assessee branch. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 7. To inspire the bench that, length of delay should not be sole attribute in deciding as to whether same should

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

TDS compliances etc., and (e) collating of information of thirteen year old records from the merged assessee branch. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 7. To inspire the bench that, length of delay should not be sole attribute in deciding as to whether same should

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 171/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

TDS compliances etc., and (e) collating of information of thirteen year old records from the merged assessee branch. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 7. To inspire the bench that, length of delay should not be sole attribute in deciding as to whether same should

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 176/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

TDS and the Karagir had considered the same amount for taxation in his person income tax return. Thus, no cash was paid back to appellant. The chart below depicts the said contention of the appellant. The appellant also filed copies of ITR of these Karigars for year under consideration. 4.10 In view of the above discussion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 177/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

TDS and the Karagir had considered the same amount for taxation in his person income tax return. Thus, no cash was paid back to appellant. The chart below depicts the said contention of the appellant. The appellant also filed copies of ITR of these Karigars for year under consideration. 4.10 In view of the above discussion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 179/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

TDS and the Karagir had considered the same amount for taxation in his person income tax return. Thus, no cash was paid back to appellant. The chart below depicts the said contention of the appellant. The appellant also filed copies of ITR of these Karigars for year under consideration. 4.10 In view of the above discussion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 180/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

TDS and the Karagir had considered the same amount for taxation in his person income tax return. Thus, no cash was paid back to appellant. The chart below depicts the said contention of the appellant. The appellant also filed copies of ITR of these Karigars for year under consideration. 4.10 In view of the above discussion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 175/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

TDS and the Karagir had considered the same amount for taxation in his person income tax return. Thus, no cash was paid back to appellant. The chart below depicts the said contention of the appellant. The appellant also filed copies of ITR of these Karigars for year under consideration. 4.10 In view of the above discussion

MOODABIDRE TOWN MUNICIPALITY,MOODUBIDIRE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), MANGALORE

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 002/Pan/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri B. Y. Chavan
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

TDS statement on 30.12.2016 (after 01.06.2015). In view of the above discussion and binding decisions, I hereby direct the AO to quantify the amount of late fees to be paid us. 234E for the delay from 01-06-2015 till the actual date of filing of the statement for the quarter, as mentioned below: Due date of Actual date

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

34,395 shares) worth Rs.52.41 crores were bought. Thereafter, from 08.10.2008 to 31.03.2009 vide 24 contract notes on different dates shares (1,37,33,892 shares) worth Rs. 122.38 crores were bought. Thus, during Financial year 2008-09, appellant bought 3,38,03,812 shares worth Rs.362.32 crores of single company M/s Sesa

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

34,395 shares) worth Rs.52.41 crores were bought. Thereafter, from 08.10.2008 to 31.03.2009 vide 24 contract notes on different dates shares (1,37,33,892 shares) worth Rs. 122.38 crores were bought. Thus, during Financial year 2008-09, appellant bought 3,38,03,812 shares worth Rs.362.32 crores of single company M/s Sesa

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

ITA 390/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

For Appellant: Ms Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

TDS thereon, it cannot be treated as an ascertained liability on account of employee emoluments. 4) The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the section 115JB is complete code in itself and it overrides all other provisions of the Act. The book profit is deemed to be total income of the assessee and ITAT-Panaji Page

SRITHIK ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,GOA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) PANAJI,GOA, PANAJI,GOA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2016-17 Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 3, Sanguem Industrial Estate, Sanguem, Goa-403704 Pan : Aaics1765P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By: Mrs Girija Agrawal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Din & Order No 1068425181(1) Dt. 06/09/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Originated From Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. [‘Ld. Ao’].

For Appellant: Mrs Girija Agrawal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)Section 40Section 68

TDS (2) ₹42,41,967- addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit upon assessee’s failure to substantiate closing cash balance (3) further addition of ₹98,54,509/- towards advances remained unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by aforestated assessment the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 17/01/2019 which was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution

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

TDS was deducted on the contractor payments and is not disputed by the revenue. Hence considering the facts, submissions and judicial decisions relied, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and direct the assessing officer to delete the disallowance of community development and village welfare 7 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. expenses and this

THE KERI URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KERI, GOA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 140/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri S.J. KamatFor Respondent: Smt. Neelima Nadkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

10. Insofar as the reliance of the ld. DR on the case of Pr. CIT and Another Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sales Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Kar.) is concerned, we find that the issue in that case was the eligibility of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act on interest earned by the assessee co-operative society on investments made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - (1), PANAJI vs. M/S GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 453/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

10 years with initial assessment year as AY 2007-08. The activity wise profit and loss account placed on record at page 23 of the paper book is reproduced as under: 4.3. Assessee submitted that the said deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act was allowed to it for all the preceding seven years. Aggrieved by the addition/disallowance, assessee went

GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 449/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

10 years with initial assessment year as AY 2007-08. The activity wise profit and loss account placed on record at page 23 of the paper book is reproduced as under: 4.3. Assessee submitted that the said deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act was allowed to it for all the preceding seven years. Aggrieved by the addition/disallowance, assessee went