How many judgments cite 1. PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite 1. PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (406 ITR 326), spanning 2019 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 1. PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 144, Section 147, Section 148.

1. PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah

406 ITR 326High Court2018#5065 most cited

What is 1. PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah authority for?

Reopening an assessment solely for the purpose of verification or to conduct a fishing inquiry is not permissible, as it fails to meet the requirement of the Assessing Officer having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. An independent opinion by the Assessing Officer is mandatory for reopening.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · reason to believe · tangible material · verification · fishing inquiry · independent opinion

Sections most often in play

Section 144 Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 148(2)section 80h section 151(2)material facts necessary for assessment section 2(14)section 80hhc section 80hh borrowed satisfaction live link tangible material reason to believe reopening of assessment

Judgments citing 1. PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah

MOHD XAHID KURESHI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 60 (4 )), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3076/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Wahaj Ahmad Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…ussion at page 2 that the Assessing Officer had initiated section 148/147 proceedings for the reason that the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.14,39,700/- remained unverified. This being the clinching case, I hereby quote PCIT vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 326 (Guj.) and PCIT Vs. Maheshwari Devi (2023) 455 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) and to conclude that such a reopening initiated for the purpose of verification is not sustainable in law. I accordingly quash the 2 Modh Zahid Kureshi impugned reopening in very terms. All other pleads on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in ab…

TULSHI DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO,WD-11(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…ing cases, the Hon’ble various judicial forums have also decided that reopening made for the purpose of verification or examination is not permissible under the Act. A few decisions are discussed as under: (a) In the case of PCIT vs Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah (406 ITR 326)(Guj) the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has held that formation of independent opinion by the AO is mandatory condition and mere mentioning of need for deep verification of information received is not a valid ground for reopening. The Hon'ble court has held that reopening of assessment could 5 Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2012-13 not be permitted…

M/S. SAROJ EMBRODS PVT. LTD. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1352/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…dly be quashed. The Ld. A.R submitted that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with 148 of the Act is therefore bad in law and may kindly be quashed. In defense of argument the Ld. A.R relied on the following decisions: 1. PCIT v ManzilDineshkumar Shah (406 ITR 326)(Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 5 I.T.A. Nos.…

SAROJ EMBRODS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT,C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1351/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

DILIP KANHAIYALAL BHANSALI,GHOTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 393/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 148

…hat the alleged income required “detailed verification as well as in- depth enquiry is needed for which the case is reopened….” 3. Faced with this situation, the undersigned is of the considered opinion in light of PCIT vs. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah, [2018] 406 ITR 326 (Guj.) and PCIT vs. Maheswari Devi [2023] 455 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) that such a course of action is not sustainable in sec.148/147 proceedings. I thus quash the impugned reopening/re-assessment for this precise reason alone. All other issues on merits stand rendered academic. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronou…

SAGAR BABANRAO AWATADE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 79/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.79/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Goyal &For Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. /ITA No.79/PUN/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sagar Babanrao Awatade, Income Tax Officer, A-13, RH-IV, Sector-9, Ward-1, Panvel Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Maharashtra vs. PAN : AJXPA8812C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Harsh Goyal & Shri Shashikant Goyal For Revenue : Smt. Neha Deshpande Date of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-1…

M/S. VINAYAK AGRO INDUSTRIES,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-4, ROURKELA

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

ITA 166/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…2 (9) T~l 38 (Guj.)] 3. Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd. Vs CTa [(2022) 27 VST 419 (AP) 4. PClT Vs Vrundavan Ceramics (P) Ltd. [(2018). 265 Taxman.383 (Guj)] 5. CIT Vs Vignesh Kumar Jewellers [(2009) 180 Taxman 18 (Mad.)] 6 PCIT Vs Manzil Dineshkumar Shah [(2018) 406 ITR 326 (Guj.)] upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 261 Taxman 1 (SC)] .' 7. PClT Vs Sunhill Ceramics P. Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1563 (Guj.)] 8. PClT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd .. [(2020) 423 ITR 220 (Born.)] 9. Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO [(1996)221 ITR 538 (SC)] 10 Rajararn Rajendra Bhandari Vs. CIT [2016J 388 ITR 259 (Raj.) upheld by the Hon…

M/S. VINAYAK AGRO INDUSTRIES,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-4, ROURKELA

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

ITA 107/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

DEEPAK JAIN,C-SCHEME vs. ITO WARD 2(1), BHAGWAN DAS ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…AO to tangible material and reasons failed to demonstrate live link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, reassessment was held to be not justified. 1.15. In the case of Manzil Dineshkumar Shah [2018] 406 ITR 326 (Gujarat), the High Court, at Para 7-8, held that even the assessment which is completed u/s. 143(1) cannot be reopened without proper ‘reason to believe’. If the reasons state that the information was received from any department, then such aspects “needed deep verification”. Otherwise, it is to be considered that AO reopened the case for doing…

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

…7 ITR 330 (Delhi) 1.6.3. Krown Agro Foods (P.) Ltd. [2015] 375 ITR 460 (Delhi) 1.6.4. RMG Polyvinyl (I)B Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) 1.6.5. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) 1.7. In the case of Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah [2018] 406 ITR 326 (Gujarat), the High Court, at Para 7-8, held that even the assessment which is completed u/s. 143(1) cannot be reopened without proper ‘reason to believe’. If the reasons state that the information was received from any department, then such aspects “needed deep verification”. Otherwise, it is to be considered that AO reopened the case for doing…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…rgued that the re-opening was made in order to carry out the verification to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions which is not permissible.In defense of his argument the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah (406 ITR 326)(Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the 22 I.T.A. No.2407 & 2408/Kol/2019 C.O No. 55 & 56/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1886/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1886/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Rekhaben Indravadan Chokshi, I.T.O, 204, Anmol Apartment, Vs. Ward-5(3)(2), Mahalaxmi Society, Ahmedabad. B/H. Unnati School, Paldi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…2. 6.1 From the above reason, we note that the proceedings were initiated to verify the genuineness of cash payment made by the assessee for Rs.25,20,000/- only. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT V/s Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (2018) reported in 406 ITR 326 held the reopening invalid if it is initiated for the purpose of verification. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: 9. If on the basis of information made available to him and upon applying his mind to such information, the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Court…

METAL TUBE AND ROLLING MILLS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 24(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemetal Tubes & Rolling Mills V. Income Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) 1St Floor, Metal Tube & Rolling Mills Mumbai Marol Maroshi Road, Marol Village Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaefm9353N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshawala & Shri D.B. Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 148

…Shipping Co 5 NYPCTR 1140 (Born). v. The AO has mentioned at 3 places in his Reasons for reopening that the figures "need to be verified". Reopening is not permitted for purposes of verification, nor for a fishing or a rowing enquiry. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 406 ITR 326 (Guj) vi. The AO is not entitled, on change of opinion, to commence proceedings for reassessment. The reliance placed by the Sr. AR on the judgment of 3i Infotech has been displaced in Ananta Landmark P Ltd 323 CTR 138 (Bom) at para 17. All the judgments cited by me above have been placed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. In an unlikely possibility of…

ASST CIT CC 1 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEY TECH, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…he Act as well as the consequent assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act are bad in law and was rightly held to be invalid. In defence of his arguments, the Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions as under: 1. PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (406 ITR 326)(Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v Manibe…

SMT. MEERA DEVI AGRAWAL,,RAIGARH(C.G) vs. THE ITO- 1,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, the assessee succeeds on legal ground towards validity of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act

ITA 17/BIL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.17/Rpr/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) बनाम/ Smt. Meera Devi Agrawal The Income-Tax L/H Of Late Shri Narayan Officer-1, Vs. Prasad Agrawal Aayakar Bhawan, Prop. M/S. Shivnathrai Chakradhar Nagar, Rambhajan, Raigarh (Cg) Raigarh "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Achpa9810H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 147

…143(3) of the Act. The action of the AO for invoking jurisdiction is thus inconsistent with the mandate of law and therefore requires to be quashed. 9. It is well settled by plethora of judicial precedents, including Pr.CIT vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 326 (Guj), the SLP against which has been dismissed in (2019) 101 taxmann.com 259 (SC) that reopening is not permissible merely to seek investigation of facts collected without holding at least prima facie belief towards escapement of income based on relevant material. The conditions set out for invocation of Section 147 of the Act have not been met…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANHATTAN IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 639/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sajit V. Nair, D.R

Section 141Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

…nd therefore the assessment proceedings as well as the consequent assessment order are bad in law and has rightly been held so by ld CIT(A). In defence of his arguments, the Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions as under: 1. PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (406 ITR 326)(Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481) (Gujarat) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) (SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) (Bombay HC) 6.…

SHRI SUJAY PANKAJBHAI SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OSD CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee succeeds on legal ground towards validity of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act

ITA 1138/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1138/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla

Section 147Section 148(2)

…d under section 147 of the Act. However, an independent formation of belief thereon is sine qua non for taking action under section 147 of the Act. 6.3 It is well settled by plethora of judicial precedents, including Pr.CIT vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 326 (Guj), the ITA No.1138/Ahd/16 [Shri Sujay P. Shah vs. ACIT(OSD)] A.Y. 2009-10 - 6 - SLP against which has been dismissed in (2019) 101 taxmann.com 259 (SC) that reopening is not permissible merely to seek investigation of facts collected without holding at least prima facie belief towards escapement of income based on relevant material. The condi…

AKIK MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this legal issue which is contested by the assessee in Ground Nos

ITA 8884/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannua N D Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D. R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

…elied upon the following decisions: i) Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs. ITO 57 ITR 637 (SC) ii) Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. vs. CIT 324 ITR 289 (Del) iii) PCIT vs. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2019) 261 Taxman 1 (SC) iv) PCIT vs. Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 326 (Guj) The Ld. AR further submitted that Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the Pr. CIT who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion, approval of Pr. CIT. The mere appending of the expression ‘approval’ says nothing. It is not as if the Pr. CIT has to record elaborate r…

MRS. RENU TIKAMDAS THARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2333/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ssment is sought to be reopened for deep verification of the claims, such an reopening of assessment cannot be sustained in law. A reference was then made to yet another judgment of the same Hon‟ble High Court, in the case of PCIT Vs Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (406 ITR 326) wherein it has been held that a completed assessment cannot be reopened only for verification of information received by Assessing Officer from VAT Department relating to purchase alleged to have been made by assessee from hawala dealers. It is also pointed out that SLP against this judgment has been dismissed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the jud…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2