169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244)

Manu Bali, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 790/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Kumar Matta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…en submissions, which are reproduced hereunder:- “Sub: Written Submission in the above case- reg. In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered: 1. Union of India v. pharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271 (1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 IT…

Harish Narinder Salve, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. SACHIT JOLLY, ADVFor Respondent: SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…iii) CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi). iv) BA Balasubramaniam and Bros. Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC). v) CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (2010) 189 Taxman 322 (SC) vi) Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records available with us especially the order passed by the revenue authorities and we find that the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year in dispute on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 34,74,20,950/-. Assesse has also filed his revised return of income on 3…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunbeam Auto (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6141/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 6141/Del./2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 D.C.I.T., Circle 9(1), vs. Sunbeam Auto (P) Ltd., New Delhi. S-323A, Panchsheel Park, (Appellant) New Delhi. PAN – AAACG0998E (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT/DR Respondent by Sh.S.D. Kapila, Advocate & Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Date of Hearing 05.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi for th…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4491/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…inning Factory v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014(AY-2009-10) 21.12.2016 vi) CIT vs Manu Engg. (122 ITR 306) (Guj. HC) vii) Dilip N. Shroof vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) viii) UOl vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244) (SC) ix) CIT V/s Reliance Petrophoducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 159) (SC) Finally, the ld.AR prayed before the Bench that in view of the defective notice which was incurable in view of the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the decisions of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO was void abinitio…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4490/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…inning Factory v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014(AY-2009-10) 21.12.2016 vi) CIT vs Manu Engg. (122 ITR 306) (Guj. HC) vii) Dilip N. Shroof vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) viii) UOl vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244) (SC) ix) CIT V/s Reliance Petrophoducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 159) (SC) Finally, the ld.AR prayed before the Bench that in view of the defective notice which was incurable in view of the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the decisions of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO was void abinitio…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4489/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…inning Factory v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014(AY-2009-10) 21.12.2016 vi) CIT vs Manu Engg. (122 ITR 306) (Guj. HC) vii) Dilip N. Shroof vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) viii) UOl vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244) (SC) ix) CIT V/s Reliance Petrophoducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 159) (SC) Finally, the ld.AR prayed before the Bench that in view of the defective notice which was incurable in view of the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the decisions of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO was void abinitio…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4488/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…inning Factory v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014(AY-2009-10) 21.12.2016 vi) CIT vs Manu Engg. (122 ITR 306) (Guj. HC) vii) Dilip N. Shroof vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) viii) UOl vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244) (SC) ix) CIT V/s Reliance Petrophoducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 159) (SC) Finally, the ld.AR prayed before the Bench that in view of the defective notice which was incurable in view of the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the decisions of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO was void abinitio…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4487/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…inning Factory v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014(AY-2009-10) 21.12.2016 vi) CIT vs Manu Engg. (122 ITR 306) (Guj. HC) vii) Dilip N. Shroof vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) viii) UOl vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244) (SC) ix) CIT V/s Reliance Petrophoducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 159) (SC) Finally, the ld.AR prayed before the Bench that in view of the defective notice which was incurable in view of the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the decisions of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO was void abinitio…

M/S. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 3295/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Raj Rani Lakra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…ractual charges which has already been proved by AOs order.” 4. Ld. ACIT (TDS) thus levied penalty under section 271C of the Act, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 295 ITR 244. He levied penalty as under: S. No. Assessment Year Penalty levied 1. 2003-04 28,25,685 2. 2004-05 21,81,585 3. 2008-09 46,68,372 4. 2009-10 1,02,72,274 5. 2009-10 3,39,90,000 5. Against order by Ld. AO passed under section 271C of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed penalty levied. 6. Aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT…

Global Proserv Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7335/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…Ginning Factory v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014(AY-2009-10) 21.12.2016 vi) CIT vs Manu Engg. (122 ITR 306) (Guj. HC) vii) Dilip N. Shroof vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) viii) UOl vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244) (SC) ix) CIT V/s Reliance Petrophoducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 159) (SC) Finally, the ld.AR prayed before the Bench that in view of the defective notice which was incurable in view of the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the decisions of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO was non-est and vo…

Global Proserv Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7334/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…Ginning Factory v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014(AY-2009-10) 21.12.2016 vi) CIT vs Manu Engg. (122 ITR 306) (Guj. HC) vii) Dilip N. Shroof vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) viii) UOl vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244) (SC) ix) CIT V/s Reliance Petrophoducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 159) (SC) Finally, the ld.AR prayed before the Bench that in view of the defective notice which was incurable in view of the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the decisions of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO was non-est and vo…

Global Proserv Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7333/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…Ginning Factory v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014(AY-2009-10) 21.12.2016 vi) CIT vs Manu Engg. (122 ITR 306) (Guj. HC) vii) Dilip N. Shroof vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) viii) UOl vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244) (SC) ix) CIT V/s Reliance Petrophoducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 159) (SC) Finally, the ld.AR prayed before the Bench that in view of the defective notice which was incurable in view of the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the decisions of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO was non-est and vo…

Panasonic India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 10

ITA 479/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 479/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. M/S. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Spic Building Annexe, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, 88, Mount Road, Company Circle V(1) Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aadcp 9391B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Dinodia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri.Durai Pandian, Sr. A.R

Section 271(1)Section 92BSection 92F

…t for building foreign brand of an Associated Enterprise abroad, thereby shifting the profits to the foreign entity. As per ld. Assessing Officer by virtue of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textiles Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 mensrea was not an ingredient essential for levy of penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act. He considered the sum of "1,86,87,616/- as concealed income and levied penalty of "62,90,246/-. :- 7 -: 5. Assessee moved in appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Argument of the assessee was that there was no concealment or furnishing of an…

Rameshkumar D.Rawal, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, for statistical purpose, appeal filed by the appellant is treated is dismissed

ITA 1651/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Rameshkumar D. Rawal Ito 14(1)(2), Mumbai 11, 3Rd Floor, Ovalwadi, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400002 Pan No.Aabpr3423R .. Appellant Respondent .. None Assessee By Revenue By .. B.S Bist, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 08-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 08-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276

…s of the Explanation After the introduction of Explanation, there is no question of proof of mens rea. The law laid down in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar 8a, Gen. Mills Ltd. as well as Anwarali no longer good law. 2. UOI V. Dharmendra Textile processors (SC) 295 ITR 244. We are of the view that there is a conflict of opinions between the judgments of the Division Bench of this court in the Case of Dilip N. Shroff on the one hand and on the other hand we have another judgment of this court in the case of Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund [2006] 5 SCC 361. Secondly, it may be pointed out that the object behind…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Castrol India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7922/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Peejush Sonkar, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 271(1)(c)

…at a higher rate is available on the asset. He submitted, in any case, department does not require to prove mens rea. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors., [2007] 295 ITR 244 (SC). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and the facts and material on record in the light of decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative. Undisputedly, assessee’s claim of depreciation at the higher rate of 80% on a micro processor based control system by treating it as energy saving device has been rejected by the D…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Reach Interactive Com. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3469/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2001-02 Dcit, Circle 15(1), Vs. Reach Interactive Com. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 7, Local Shopping Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcr 9137 R ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Kesong Y. Sherpa Sr. Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2016. Date Of Order : 10/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Kesong Y. Sherpa Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…T(A) cannot be a ground for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c). In this context, I find that the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune in the case of Kanbay Software India (P) Ltd. (2009) 31 SOT 153 after considering the decisions of the Apex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors 295 ITR 244 (SC) and Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) has inter alia held as under: "Whether details or information about income deal with factual details of income and this cannot be extended to areas which are subjective , such as status of taxability of an income, admissibility of a deduction and interpretation of law-Held, yes - Whether admission or reje…

Smt. Rachna Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4079/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raorachna Arora, Ito, B-424, Meera Bagh, Ward-25(3), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aikpa0370Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Shanti Arora, Ito, B-424, Meera Bagh, Ward-25(3), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aikpa0370Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Amit Arora, Ito, B-424, Meera Bagh, Ward-25(3), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aikpa0370Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. B.B. Bhagar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…rding deemed income as concealed income being the difference between assessed income and return income. She has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others, (2007) 295 ITR 244 as well in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2014) 1 SCC 674. Thus the ld DR has supported the order of the authorities below and submitted that when the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to prove the transaction of gift as genuine and the addition made by the AO has attained finality then as per explanation of section 271(1)(c) the…

Ashok I. Bachani ( HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5430/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 5430/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 बनाम/ The Ito 24(1)(3), Shri Ashok I. Bachani (Huf), Mumbai C-603, Himachal Chs, Vs. S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 097 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeha0187Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri A. Ramachandran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :23.11.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :23.11 .2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: With This Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143(3)Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA No. 5430/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 बनाम/ The ITO 24(1)(3), Shri Ashok I. Bachani (HUF), Mumbai C-603, Himachal CHS, Vs. S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 097 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAEHA0187Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri A. Ramachandran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :23.11.2015 घोषणा क"…

169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

Manu Bali, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Harish Narinder Salve, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunbeam Auto (P) Ltd., New Delhi

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

M/S. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

Global Proserv Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

Global Proserv Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

Global Proserv Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

Panasonic India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Rameshkumar D.Rawal, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Castrol India Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Reach Interactive Com. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Smt. Rachna Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Ashok I. Bachani ( HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai