Search: TDS | BharatTax

M/S. T - 3 ENERGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arijit Chakravarty and Shraddha SwarupFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

47,432/-. Similarly, for the immediate previous financial year i.e. 2008-09, the assessee had paid ₹ 10,74,870/- during the year only. The assessee was asked as to why no TDS under section

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2286/PUN/2025[2014-15 - Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 6. In this case, Late Fee under section 234E has been levied for F.Y.2013-14. The chart submitted by ld.AR is reproduced as under: FY Quarter Return Date of Late Filing Filed on 200A order levy 2013-14 Q2 20-Sep-14 25-Sep-14 47

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2285/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 6. In this case, Late Fee under section 234E has been levied for F.Y.2013-14. The chart submitted by ld.AR is reproduced as under: FY Quarter Return Date of Late Filing Filed on 200A order levy 2013-14 Q2 20-Sep-14 25-Sep-14 47

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2287/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 6. In this case, Late Fee under section 234E has been levied for F.Y.2013-14. The chart submitted by ld.AR is reproduced as under: FY Quarter Return Date of Late Filing Filed on 200A order levy 2013-14 Q2 20-Sep-14 25-Sep-14 47

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SKODA AUTO A.S.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 787/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.787/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak &

Section 10Section 143(3)

section, payment made in pursuance to the agreement was to be approved by the Govt. of India and in the case of assessee, approval granted by the Govt. of India had already lapsed and did not cover the relevant financial years. 4. The second issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of DRP in directing the Assessing Officer

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 433/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

47,182/- which had an effect of reducing the loss declared. The addition be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in appeals for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 4. Shri M.K. Kulkarni appearing on behalf

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

47,182/- which had an effect of reducing the loss declared. The addition be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in appeals for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 4. Shri M.K. Kulkarni appearing on behalf

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 432/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

47,182/- which had an effect of reducing the loss declared. The addition be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in appeals for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 4. Shri M.K. Kulkarni appearing on behalf

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 434/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

47,182/- which had an effect of reducing the loss declared. The addition be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in appeals for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 4. Shri M.K. Kulkarni appearing on behalf

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 906/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 907/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 905/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PVT.LTD,, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 664/PUN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 664/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Ansys Software Pvt. Ltd. Kabra Excelsior, 3Rd Floor, #6A, 7Th Main, 1St Block, Kormangala, Bengaluru-560 034 Pan : Aadca1658E ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Divya Bajpai Assessee By : Shri V. Narendra Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Divya Bajpai

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 195Section 250Section 40

47 wherein it was held the amendment to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2010 will operate retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2005. As per the aforesaid amendment, tax deducted at source, if it is paid on or before the due date for filing return of income, then no disallowance u/s.40

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

TDS certificates / 15G forms for verification. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The invocation of 6 CO No.43/PUN/2025 provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was also challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee

SHIVDAS VENKAT GOMARE HUF,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

ITA 760/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 253

TDS under Section 194A of the Act amounting to Rs. 47,80,422/- (Rupees Forty-Seven Lakh Eighty Thousand Four

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

ITA 2405/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 2(14)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

TDS has been deducted under the PAN of the assessee Shri Chandrakant Vithal Bhopi under section 184A which represents interest other than Interest on securities. The assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence and confirmation from the other members/co-owners about receipt of payment to the extent of their share of compensation/enhanced compensation or the receipt of Interest payment. During

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1809/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /

Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1808/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /

Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1807/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /

Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that