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.

57 results for “TDS”+ Section 88clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,334Mumbai1,205Bangalore574Chennai461Indore429Kolkata288Hyderabad269Ahmedabad247Pune189Jaipur155Chandigarh143Karnataka124Visakhapatnam123Cochin118Raipur112Cuttack95Ranchi67Surat57Amritsar40Guwahati36Agra33Rajkot33Lucknow32Jodhpur26Nagpur26Allahabad21Patna19Kerala18Telangana13Dehradun13SC7Jabalpur5Calcutta3Panaji2Gauhati1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income49Disallowance41Section 143(3)37Section 254(1)22Section 271(1)(c)20Deduction19Section 14818Section 6817TDS15Section 147

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 68

TDS, Circle- Ranchi under section 131 (1)(d) of the Act to conduct enquiries in case of the lenders based at Ranchi. The said officers have sent the enquiry reports, which are framing part of assessment order. The findings of the AO as per chart is as under: S. Name of the Alleged Findings of enquiry N. Lenders Loan(includi

M/S. K.N. DIAMOND,,BILIMORA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

14
Bogus Purchases14
Reassessment14
ITA 1788/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 194JSection 40Section 40A(2)(b)

TDS provisions have been compiled with in accordance with the Act. In case Assessing Officer had any doubt, he could have very well cross verified such aspects by calling for details from the concerned parties u/s.133(6) of the Act. However, Assessing Officer chose not to do anything of such sort. The books of accounts are duly audited under section

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

TDS of Rs. 1,62,489/- on sales deducted by Gaurang Yogeshbhai Shah. Thus, it required to verify details of whether the assessee had offered the ITA 392/SRT/2018 Sach Electro Mech P Ltd. Vs PR.CIT income receipt from sales or not. And thirdly in Note 22 of Audit report, of column of other expenses of service tax and VAT debiting

JAVAHARLAL S DHARIWAL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Javaharlal S Dhariwal Income Tax Officer, 886 Old Gidc, Nr. Bank Of Ward-1(2)(2), Surat-395001 Vs Baroda, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Pan No: Aaypd 4207 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mahul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2013- 14, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.3,45,378/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,46,915/- Out Of Total Disallowance Of Rs.4,93,830/- On Account Of Machinery Salary Expenses. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.3,95,466/- Being Interest Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 40Section 57

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 12.02.2016. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making a disallowance

RIZWANAHMED MOHMED USMAIN SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis dismissed

ITA 46/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rizwanahmed Mohmed Usmain The Ito, Shaikh Ward-1(2)(6), Vs Hasina, Manjil, Harinagar-1, Surat. Udhna, Surat. Pan: Adaps 5725 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 201Section 40

88,650/- to L&T Finance, Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd, and Tata Finance Ltd. i.e. Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC). The assessee has also paid transport maintenance charges of Rs. 1,59,800/- to M/s Swami Tires. The assessee failed to make TDS on interest payment in contravention of provisions of section

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

ITA 1003/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) on 31.12.2008 assessing total income of Rs. 18,25,11,340/-. The assessing officer during the assessment from the trading account of Padmavati Gems noted that the assessee has shown receipt of Rs. 1,78,47,208/- on account of labour job work. The assessee has shown payment of Rs. 1,76,51,180/- as labour charges

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. J.K. PAPER LTD.,, SURAT

In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 365/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.365/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S J. K. Paper Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mills, Surat. Fort Songadh – 394660. Dist. Tapi, Gujarat. [Pan: Aaact 6305 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 14ASection 41(1)

Section 41(1) of the IT Act ? 3- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account excess Process Stock declared to the Bank without appreciating the facts that the Assessing officer rightly made addition on after finding difference in stock

SHIVA INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY GUJARAT PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, ITA No.2527/Ahd/2017 is allowed, and ITA

ITA 2527/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 40

88,646/- was not paid by the assessee company to the relevant fund before the due date. Hence, the sum of Rs. ITA No.2527 AND 2528/Ahd/2015 3 1,09,69,469/- requires to be added to the total income of the assessee u/s.36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) the I.T. Act. In view of the above, I have reason

SHIVA INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY GUJARAT PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, SURAT

In the result, ITA No.2527/Ahd/2017 is allowed, and ITA

ITA 2528/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 40

88,646/- was not paid by the assessee company to the relevant fund before the due date. Hence, the sum of Rs. ITA No.2527 AND 2528/Ahd/2015 3 1,09,69,469/- requires to be added to the total income of the assessee u/s.36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) the I.T. Act. In view of the above, I have reason

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

TDS on the same. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses towards Employees contribution to provident fund/shortfall Rs.29,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is using this fund to cover up shortfall and pay employees contribution which is in fact

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 590/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

TDS on the same. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses towards Employees contribution to provident fund/shortfall Rs.29,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is using this fund to cover up shortfall and pay employees contribution which is in fact

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

Section 195Section 195(6)Section 271Section 274

TDS as per the provisions of the Act. It is worthwhile to mention that Section 195(6) has been amended during the year under consideration i.e. with effect from 01.06.2015 which is reproduced as given below: 'The person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any sum, whether or not chargeable

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

ITA 118/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

88,880/-. Subsequently, on receipt of information from Investigation Wing, Mumbai the case of assessee was reopened under section 147. The assessing officer received information that a search action was carried out on Rajendra Jain, Sanjay Chaudhary and Dharmi Chand Jain group on 03/10/2013, who were providing bogus entries of sale purchase of diamond, Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

ITA 119/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

88,880/-. Subsequently, on receipt of information from Investigation Wing, Mumbai the case of assessee was reopened under section 147. The assessing officer received information that a search action was carried out on Rajendra Jain, Sanjay Chaudhary and Dharmi Chand Jain group on 03/10/2013, who were providing bogus entries of sale purchase of diamond, Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

88,880/-. Subsequently, on receipt of information from Investigation Wing, Mumbai the case of assessee was reopened under section 147. The assessing officer received information that a search action was carried out on Rajendra Jain, Sanjay Chaudhary and Dharmi Chand Jain group on 03/10/2013, who were providing bogus entries of sale purchase of diamond, Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG

THE ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1867/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 80I

88,461/- and one time membership fee for incinerator plan of Rs.11.20 lacs for the purpose of computing Section 80IA deduction claim by following hon'ble apex court's decision in Pandian Chemical's case 262 ITR 278 (SC) that the same could not be held to have been derived from the above stated solid waste disposal plant. 10. Heard

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1849/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 80I

88,461/- and one time membership fee for incinerator plan of Rs.11.20 lacs for the purpose of computing Section 80IA deduction claim by following hon'ble apex court's decision in Pandian Chemical's case 262 ITR 278 (SC) that the same could not be held to have been derived from the above stated solid waste disposal plant. 10. Heard

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 329/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 24 of Income Tax Act while assessing the total income of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as learned Assessing Officer have erred in not allowing deduction under chapter VIA of Rs.1,50,000 while assessing the total income

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 24 of Income Tax Act while assessing the total income of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as learned Assessing Officer have erred in not allowing deduction under chapter VIA of Rs.1,50,000 while assessing the total income

MADHVI AJITKUMAR RANKA ,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AHFPR5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Darshit J. Naik, CA Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section