How many judgments cite 1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT?

97 judgments on BharatTax cite 1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT (394 ITR 146), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 132, Section 250.

1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT

394 ITR 146High Court2017#1172 most cited

What is 1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 cannot be initiated by the Assessing Officer based on borrowed satisfaction, vague information from the Investigation Wing, or incorrect jurisdictional facts without independent application of mind. Reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, especially where an original assessment was completed under section 143(3), requires specific conditions relating to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Harikishan S. Virmani · DCIT · 394 ITR 146 · section 147 · section 148 · borrowed satisfaction · reopening beyond four years · section 143(3) assessment · investigation wing information · independent application of mind · reassessment validity

Also reported as

64 Taxmann.com 179

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 132 Section 250 Section 131 Section 149

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assets section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158ba section 150 unexplained jewellery section 70 beyond four years section 149(1)(b)section 18 statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing 1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…ced on following judgments wherein the Courts have been pleased to quash reassessment proceedings initiated on identical allegation of misuse of client code modification solely based on report of investigation wing: - Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani v. DCIT: 394 ITR 146 (Gujarat) - Reopening of assessment beyond four years on basis of information received from Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), was not justified when there was no allegation of assessee's failure to disclose truly and fully material facts necessary for assessment - Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. v. DCIT: 379 ITR 456 (Bombay) - Hel…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…itted that the provisions of section 147 of the Act can be pressed into action for ‘reason to believe’ and not for ‘reason for suspect’. The appellant relied on following case laws: (i) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani [2017] 394 ITR 146 dated.- 20/12/2016. (ii) Hon’ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Smt. Sunita Jain, Smt. Rachna Sachin Jain in ITA. Nos. 501 & 502/AHD/2016 Dated.- March 9, 2017. I find that in the present case there was specific information of manufacturing of additional Jewellery of Rs.9,85,63,946/-which was not disclosed in the books of account of the firms. Therefo…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

DEVKRUPA INTERNATIONAL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -1 BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 820/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaldevkrupa International, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shop No.1 Navkar Tower, Of Income-Tax Circle-1, Kalubha Road, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364001 [Pan: Aaefd0184G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…the assessee, which are duly supported by the following judicial precedents :- a) Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT [2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi); b) Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. v. ITO [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.); c) Harikishan Sundarlal Virmani v. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.); d) 03 Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1028 (Guj.). 8.3 In view of the above discussion, we hold that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 is based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind, and in absence of any tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings are held to be invalid…

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…caped assessment. 6. Accordingly, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). Even the similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Harikrishan Sunderlal Virmani Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) [ 394 ITR 146 ] therein the observation of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court is as under : 5.4 At this stage it is required to be noted that even in the reasons recorded, there is no allegation that there was any failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing truly and fully material facts necessary for assessment. Under the circumstances, the assumption o…

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Section 10(38)

…\nsatisfaction. Apart from the cases cited earlier, reference is also\ninvited to the following judgments:-\n1.\nSandeep Kumar Parsottamhai Patel 2022 137 taxmann.com\n373 ITA 8 & 9/SRT/2019 dated 29.11.2021.\n2.\nHarikishan Sundarlal Virmani (Guj High court) 394 ITR 146.\n3.\nMere information from Investigation Wing alone cannot be\nreason to initiate re-assessment proceedings as has been held\nin the case of Future Tech IT Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Chand)\nITA 543/Chl2019 dated 22.4.2021.\n4.\nH. R. Mehta Hon'ble Bombay High Court 387 ITR 561 Held\nAssessing Officer under duty to supply third party statement\na…

MUKESH JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…sessment.\n\n6.\nAccordingly, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b).\n\nEven the similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the\ncase of Harikrishan Sunderlal Virmani Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income\nTax, Circle-2(1) [ 394 ITR 146 ] therein the observation of the Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court is as under :\n\n5.4 At this stage it is required to be noted that even in the reasons recorded, there\nis no allegation that there was any failure on the part of the assessee in not\ndisclosing truly and fully material facts necessary for assessment. Under the\ncircumstances, the assum…

AMIT BEHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(1) (2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

…ld AR attacked the order u/s 148A(d) as vague, scanty and non-specific and that the reopening is merely based on borrowed satisfaction. The ld AR relied on ➤ Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO – (2012) 338 ITR 51 (Delhi); ➤ Harikishan S. Virmani vs DCIT– (2017) 394 ITR 146 (Guj); ➤ Paresh Babubhai Bhalani vs. ITO – SCA 922 of 2022 and Ors. (Guj); Page 4 of 13 ITA No. 923/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2015-16] Amit Behal Vs. ACIT 6. The ld AR further argued that the "Jurisdictional facts", based on which AO has assumed jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act, are "incorrect" as no property has been sold by the assessee during…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ALODIE ESTATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Income Tax, Central B-4/43, Floor, Safdarjung Circle-2, New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi-110029 Pan No.Aaica1782G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Ita No. 1730/Del/2016 ACIT v. M/s Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2011-12 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “E” NEWDELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Income Tax, Central B-4/43, Floor, Safdarjung Circle-2, New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi-110029 PAN No.AAICA1782G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Date of hearing 03.07.2025 Date of 18…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. A & D ESTATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result we upheld the decision of the Ld

ITA 1729/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…1 ACIT v. A&D Estates (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Vs A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., R/o. B-4/43, 2nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. PAN: AAFCA 2604 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv.; & Sh. Saksham Agarwal, CA Department represented by Ms. Amisha S. Gupta CIT(DR) Date of hearing 08.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The i…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SEA POINT TRADING & BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan: Aabcs0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Ld. Cit(A), In Short], Dt. 29.01.2026 In Appeal No. 16/2015-16 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Laws In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,35,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act Received From M/S Manan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.”

Section 127Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of M/s. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. PAN: AABCS0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. and Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by th…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELISMA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1728/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs M/S. Belisma Buildcon Central Circle-2, Pvt.Ltd.,77, Ss House, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. Pan-Aadcb9647C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ITA No.1728/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011-12] ACIT, vs M/s. Belisma Buildcon Central Circle-2, Pvt.Ltd.,77, SS House, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. PAN-AADCB9647C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal has been filed by the…

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…teway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT (Bombay HC) (2020) (426 ITR 228)\nc. PCIT vs M/s Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd. (Bombay HC) (2018)\nd. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) (2017) (395 ITR 677)\ne. Harikishan Sunderlal Vimani vs DCIT (Gujarat HC) (2016) 394 ITR 146\nf. PCIT vs Hitesh Ashok Vaswani (Gujarat HC) (2023) 459 ITR 610\n17. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer instead of\ninitiating proceedings u/s 153A or 153C of the Act, has resorted to the provisions\nof section 147 of the Act, therefore, the same being not in accordance with law, has\nto be quashed. Even otherwise also, th…

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT (Bombay HC) (2020) (426 ITR 228) c. PCIT vs M/s Shodiman Investments Pvt Ltd. (Bombay HC) (2018) d. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) (2017) (395 ITR 677) e. Harikishan Sunderlal Vimani vs DCIT (Gujarat HC) (2016) 394 ITR 146 f. PCIT vs Hitesh Ashok Vaswani (Gujarat HC) (2023) 459 ITR 610 17. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer instead of initiating proceedings u/s 153A or 153C of the Act, has resorted to the provisions of section 147 of the Act, therefore, the same being not in accordance with law, has to be quashed. Even otherwise also, the re-…

HARPREET KAUR KAUSHIK MANEK,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

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

ITA 109/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ed to have escaped assessment. Thus, the reopening is merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction which is not justifiable as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Paresh Babubhai Bhalani vs. ITO (supra), Harikishan S. Virmani vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 146. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Signature Hotels P. Limited vs. ITO (2012), 338 ITR 51. Thus, the CIT(A) was not right in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act which is barred by limitation. 5.2 As regards to ground nos.2, 3, 4 &…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 50/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. in the case of the assessee was merely based on borrowed satisfaction. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Harikishan S. Virmani vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel vs. ITO, [2015] 64 taxmann.com 179 (guj) 3. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO, [2012] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) 4. Paresh Babubhai Bhalani vs. ITO, [2023] 156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) (C) Reason for reopening was absolutely vague, scanty and non- specific: According to the Ld. Senior Counsel, the nature of underlying transacti…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 49/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 48/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 47/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5