Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Whether worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has not erred in law in not taking cognizance of assessee's own admission that M/s Asian Tube Trading is a fictitious firm of his parent Firm Mis Na yak Steel.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 14.09.2017 of CIT(A)-7, Bengaluru, in relation to AY 2014-15.

Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 27.6.2016 passed for Asstt.Year 2007- 08.

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, arises from order of the CIT(A)-10, Ahmedabad dated 03-03-2017, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (�hereinafter called CIT(A)�) order no.

The above two appeals are filed at the instance of the above two assessees against separate order of the ld.CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad even dated i.e. 30.10.2018 passed for the Asstt.Year 2013-14.

This assessee�s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16, arises from order of the CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad dated 21-01-2019, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short �the Act�.

Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-10, Ahmedabad dated 19.3.2019 passed for Asstt.Year 2014- 15.

This assessee�s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, arises from order of the CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad dated 17-08-2018, in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short �the Act�.

This is assessee�s appeal for the A.Y 2019-20 against the order, dated 10.12.2019 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi in the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT (A)- 9, Hyderabad.