18. Govinda Choudhury & Sons. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward A, Berhampur & Ors.

109 ITR 370High Court1977#1975 most cited

What is 18. Govinda Choudhury & Sons. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward A, Berhampur & Ors. authority for?

The approving authority must apply its mind to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before granting sanction under section 151, and a mechanical rubber-stamping or mere affixation of a stamp without due consideration constitutes an invalid approval.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Govinda Choudhury & Sons · 109 ITR 370 · section 148 · section 151 · approval · sanctioning authority · mechanical approval · application of mind · reasons recorded · reassessment · rubber stamping

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 151Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153DSection 132Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 271aab(1a)section 151(2)section 144basection 158bgsection 142(2a)approval under section 151section 271aabsection 148(2)section 151(1)section 271aac(1)section 153bsanctioning authority

Judgments citing 18. Govinda Choudhury & Sons. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward A, Berhampur & Ors.

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 428/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Apr 2026AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…cal manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under: - "19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal [1971] 71 ITR 603(SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee [1974] 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhary and Sons case [1977] 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. 7 | P a g e It is a c…

VIPUL AGRAWAL,GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5066/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarvipul Agrawal, Vs. Acit, 35, Chandrapuri, Hapur Chungi, Up Hapur, Road, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpa6874P

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…al manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under: - "19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee [1974] 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhary and Sons case [1977] 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case where lit…

BHAVIKA BHUWALKA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2), NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8258/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Bhavika Bhuwalka Vs. Ito C055, Iind Floor, Preet Ward-5 (1) (2) Vihar, Delhi Noida Pan No. Amnpb8209R Appellant Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

…nner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under: - "19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee [1974] 93 ITR 130 (Calcutta) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case [1977] 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case where lit…

VIKAS CHANDRA HUF,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvikas Chandra Huf, Vs. Cit(Appeals), D-117, Ramesh Vihar, Nfac, Delhi Ramghar Road, Aligarh Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakjv9476N Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…al manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under: - "19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee [1974] 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhary and Sons case [1977] 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case where lit…

ESSEN MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 9(1) Essen Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 101/1/2/1, B.T. Road, Bonhoogly, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700090, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5871A Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 29.07.2025 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Counsel Of The Assessee Pressed Ground No.4, Which Is In Respect Of Reopening Of Assessment Not Being In Accordance With Law & Therefore, The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…al manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under: - "19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case (1977) 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case where lit…

1.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ANUSHREYA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2543/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3658B Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 68

…al manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under: - "19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case (1977) 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case where lit…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 vs. M/S. BELIEVE CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD

ITA/555/2025HC Delhi29 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 260A

…r. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case whe…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S SHIVGANESH BUILDERS PVT. LTD

ITA/550/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…r. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case whe…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S SHINE STAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD

ITA/549/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…r. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case whe…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S. BELIEVE CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD

ITA/542/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…r. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case whe…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I vs. M/S. BHUDEVA ESTATES P. LTD

ITA/539/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…r. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case whe…

PRRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S SHINE STAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD

ITA/540/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…r. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case whe…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. SH. GOBIND KUMAR GOYAL

ITA/544/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…r. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case whe…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S SHIVGORI BUILDERS PVT

ITA/536/2025HC Delhi28 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 153DSection 260A

…r. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— “19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, (1977) 109 ITR 370(Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case whe…

ACIT, CC- 15, NEW DELHI vs. SALONI NARANG, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1496/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Saloni Narang, Tax, Central Circle-15, 5, Dr. G.G. Narang Marg, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Vs Cavalary Lane, Centre, Jhandewalan Ext. Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aafpn2692C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

…r. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under:— "19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal, [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) , Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee, [1974] 93 ITR 130 (Calcutta) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case, [1977] 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) (Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ASHUTOSH DEVELOPERS P. LTD

Appeals are dismissed, as no substantial question of law arises

ITA/522/2025HC Delhi15 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

…ITA 522/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 9 $~61, 62 and 69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 15.10.2025 + ITA 522/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai SSC, Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh JSC and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. versus ASHUTOSH DEVELOPERS P. LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gautam Jain and Mr. Manish Yadav, Advs. 62 + ITA 523/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 .....Appell…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S SHIVGORI BUILDERS PVT. LTD

Appeals are dismissed, as no substantial question of law arises

ITA/523/2025HC Delhi15 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

…ITA 522/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 9 $~61, 62 and 69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 15.10.2025 + ITA 522/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai SSC, Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh JSC and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. versus ASHUTOSH DEVELOPERS P. LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gautam Jain and Mr. Manish Yadav, Advs. 62 + ITA 523/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 .....Appell…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S MDLR RESORTS PVT. LTD

Appeals are dismissed, as no substantial question of law arises

ITA/530/2025HC Delhi15 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

…ITA 522/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 9 $~61, 62 and 69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 15.10.2025 + ITA 522/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai SSC, Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh JSC and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. versus ASHUTOSH DEVELOPERS P. LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gautam Jain and Mr. Manish Yadav, Advs. 62 + ITA 523/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 .....Appell…

M/S. SUNGLOW VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

…al manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under: - "19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case (1977) 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case where lit…

M/S. SUNGLOW VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

ITA 262/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

…anner. Paragraph 19 of the said\ndecision is reproduced as under:\n\"19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal\nRajpal (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee\n(1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case\n(1977) 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) are examined, the absence of\nreasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as\nalong with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer\nwere, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in\nwhich the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the\nBoard leaves much to be desired. It is a case wher…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3