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.

22 results for “disallowance”+ Section 50Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai310Delhi210Ahmedabad74Jaipur71Chennai69Kolkata53Hyderabad45Bangalore40Pune31Indore28Surat22Raipur21Nagpur17Chandigarh16Visakhapatnam16Rajkot11Lucknow10Guwahati9Jodhpur8Jabalpur5Agra4Karnataka2Allahabad1Cuttack1Ranchi1Varanasi1Telangana1Calcutta1Panaji1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 50C31Addition to Income21Section 54B17Section 14814Disallowance14Section 143(3)13Section 254(1)9Section 54F9Deduction9Long Term Capital Gains

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 54BSection 54FSection 55A

50C, the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed higher deduction under section 54F of the Act on proportionate basis due to increase in the figure of capital gain. The Assessing Officer disallowed

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 2636
Exemption5
ITA 355/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

Section 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance of revenue expenditures claimed by the assessee on the ground that no business activity was undertaken by the assessee during the impugned assessment year. The ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned anywhere in his order with regard to the notice of enhancement ever served upon the assessee. Provisions of section 251(2) of the Act categorically says that

HARIVADANBHAI MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

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

ITA 30/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

section 50C of the Act, 1961. The disallowance of 50C of the Act is held to be justified and the addition

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 1245/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) & Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

disallowance of the claim of ‘Capital Loss’ of the appellant and the addition u/s 50C(1) of the I.T. Act.” 27. From the above findings of ld CIT(A), it is abundantly clear that issue relating to validity of assessment made, under section

SMT. DIPIKABEN RAKESHBHAI SOPARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 541/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala, I.T.O., 8/1593 To 1598, Hanuman Char Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Rasta, Main Road, Gopipura-395002. Surat. Pan No. Bfhps 9989 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 54F

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 28/05/2018 for the Assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances

VIJAY NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Vijay Naginbhai Patel, I.T.O., 52, Hari Har Society, Katargam Main Ward 3(2)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395004. Surat. Pan No. Abrpp 3832 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 50C

Section 50C of the Act. It was also noted that the assessee kept 25% share from the said land as a purchaser. The Assessing officer calculated the assessee’s 25% share as of Rs. 9,56,862/-. The assessee filed his reply and stated that the assessee has sold 75% of the land and 25% is kept for himself

SHRI ARVINDBHAI LALLUBHAI LAKHANKIYA,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, SURAT

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

ITA 386/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai Dcit, Circle-3(3), Aaykar Lakhankia, B/78, Hans Bhavan, Majuragate, Vs Socieety, Varachha Road, Surat-395001 Surat Pan : Aadpl3819P Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

section 50C and disallowance of other expenses. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the action of Assessing Officer was upheld

SHAUKET HUSSAIN M PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(9), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 250/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shaukethussain M Patel, I.T.O., A-504, Sanjay Residency, Ward-1(3)(9), Vs. Causeway Road, Room No. 509, 5Th Floor, Rander, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395009. Surat-395001. Pan No. Artpp 2101 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

Section 50C of the Act. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee had sold the property at Rs. 1.30 crores, however, the stamp duty valuation determining the value of property was Rs. 4.17 crores. The Assessing officer disallowed

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren R.Vepari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271Section 45(2)

disallowed by Assessing Officer – Held, yes” Considering the fact discussed hereinabove, AO was correct in rejecting conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as claimed by assessee and taking gain as long term capital gain. With regards to contention of assessee that AO was incorrect in considering JANTRI value at Rs.1950 Sq meter as against 1800 Sq meter considered

LATA PRAVIN ALBEE,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 632/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

section 50C of the Act and capital gain should not be recomputed on this amount of sale consideration. 4. The assessee filed her reply dated 21.11.2017. In the reply, the assessee stated that she has taken market value at FMV as per the valuation report of Assistant 3 Lata Pravin Albee valuation officer of Income Tax Department, Surat dated

SHRI ROHIT T. PATEL, HUF,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(4),, SURAT

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2968/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rohit P. Patel (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, 2, Thakor Niwas, Near Navyug Ward-3(4), Surat. Vs College, Rander Road, Surat. [Pan : Aalhr 0456 C] Appellant Respondednt

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 50C

section 50C of the Act. Further facts of the case are discussed under the respective grounds of appeals as under. 3. First ground of appeal. In the first ground of appeal, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, was not pressed during the course of appellate proceedings. Therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed

MANJULABEN BABUBHAI THUMAR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

ITA 2997/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2997/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Manjulaben Babubhai Thumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.195, 01St Floor, Road No.6F, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat. Udyognagar, Udhna, Surat-394 210. [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 50CSection 55A

Section 50C of the Act. The assessee has failed Manjulaben Babubhai Thumar v. ITO, Ward-1(2)(6),Surat/ITA. 2997/AHD/2016/A.Y.2013-14 Page 3 of 5 to revise return of income as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. Therefore, the AO computed the net long term capital gain

SHRI AJAY T.PATEL,HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2),, SURAT

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2643/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhsr.No.

For Appellant: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Pragnesh Jagasheth , C.A
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

section 50C of the Act. Further facts of the case are discussed under the respective grounds of appeals as under. 3. First ground of appeal. In the first ground of appeal, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, was not pressed during the course of appellate proceedings. Therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed

SALIM AHMED MOHAMED SAFI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), BHARUCH

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

ITA 124/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat12 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Salim Ahmed Mohamed Safi Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Khanji Street, Kanthariya, Bharuch- Bharuch, Aaykar Bhavan, Station Vs. 392015 Road, Bharuch-392001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bmapp 3521 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mukund K Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54B

disallowances made by Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bharuch u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellant prays and appeals that the Ld. A.O Ward-1(4) Bharuch has erred in law and on facts in making the following additions: 1. Addition of Rs.23,92,000/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

section 194C of the Act are not attracted. Despite the above submission and explanation of the assessee, the PCIT did not consider the merit of the case and passed the order u/s 263 of the Act, directing to add Rs.9,33,53,047/- being 30% of the entire expenses of Rs.31,11,76,823/- as business income by making disallowance

DIPAK CHHAGANLAL NAIK L/H AMITABEN DIPAK NAIK,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1118/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1118/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dipak Chhaganlal Naik Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ L/H Amitaben Dipak Naik Surat, Room No. 627, Aaykar Vs. 44, China Gate-2, B/Hgayatri Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 Mandir, Althan S.O, Althan, 001 Surat- 395 017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhn 5872 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 2(47)Section 250Section 50CSection 80C

Section 50C was applicable. Therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued after obtaining approval from the competent authority. In response assessee filed return on 25.11.2024 declaring total income at Rs.10,252/- wherein he had claimed exempt income of Rs.56,35,000/-. After hearing the assessee, the AO added Rs.82,96,500/- as short-term capital gain. He also disallowed

SHRI SEJALBHAI G. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

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

ITA 971/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.971/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Sejalbhai G. Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, 225, Khodiyar Nagar Soceity, Gandhi Bardoli. Road, Bardoli, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apdpp9316C (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sapneth Sheth, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Surat, In Appeal No. Cas-I/424/2014-15 Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sapneth Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54BSection 54F

50C of the Act. Likewise, there was no dispute about the cost of construction of Rs.4,93,300/- allowed by the assessing officer while computing the Long Term Capital Gain. The assessing officer therefore took sale consideration at Rs.75,49,750/- and after deducting indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.7,46,128/-, the assessing officer computed long term capital gain

LATE CHIMANLAL JERAMBHAI BHAGAT LEGAL HEIR MINAXI RAKESHBHAI KAHAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, VAPI

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

ITA 45/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.45/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Lt.Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Vapi -396 191 Vs. Kahar, Flat No.104, Lake Castle, Pal, Nr. Jainam, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb 6752 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mukesh Mandowara, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54B

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act without considering the actual cost of acquisition, conversion and development cost. ITA No.45/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Lt. Chimanlal J Bhagat 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of unexplained cash deposited in bank account of Rs.6,32,000/-. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts

DHAMI BROTHERS,,SURAT vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3299/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am Dhami Brothers The Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Range-9, Surat 33-34, Jivandhara Society, Opp. Chowpaty, Varachha Road, Surat-395006.. Opp. New Civil Hospital, Majuragate, Surat. Pan/Gir No.Aabfd4987E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hiren R. Vepari Revenue By Ms. Anupama Singla (Sr. Dr)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234A

disallowing the loss of Rs.1,36,62,888/- to the assessee. On a 4 A.Y.2010-11 similar facts this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Asokkumar H. Kothari vs. ITO in ITA No.386/Ahd/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 16-1-2015 deleted the addition for the reason that the name and address of the parties to whom

SHRI NATWAR R BHARDWAJ,,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1718/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.1718/Ahd/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Natwar R Bhardwaj Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3), Aaykar 310, Chandanvan Vs Bhavan, Majura Gate, Apartment, B/S Children Surat Hospital, Majura Gate, Surat Pan No. Afvpb 0248 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 68

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 23.03.2015. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Sh. Natwar R Bhardwaj has erred