(4) ClT v. Manoj Jain

287 ITR 285High Court2006#2418 most cited

What is (4) ClT v. Manoj Jain authority for?

A District Valuation Officer (DVO) report, by itself, is not sufficient incriminating evidence to make additions for unexplained investments in a block assessment under Section 158BC. The revenue bears the primary burden of proof to establish undisclosed income, and a DVO opinion alone is also insufficient information for reopening an assessment under Section 147.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Manoj Jain · 287 ITR 285 · DVO report evidentiary value · District Valuation Officer opinion · Section 158BC block assessment · incriminating evidence search · unexplained investment additions · burden of proof revenue · Section 69B unexplained investments · Section 147 reopening assessment · sufficiency of evidence income tax · Delhi High Court judgment

Sections most often in play

Section 127Section 139Section 251Section 106Section 115BBESection 118Section 120Section 122

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 7(1)section 75section 44afsection 52section 131(1)(d)circle ratesection 55asection 142(2)section 38section 142asection 69b

Judgments citing (4) ClT v. Manoj Jain

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…ement or concealment of income is on the revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. (SeeK.P. Varghese (supra), CIT v. Shakuntala Devi , (2009) 316 ITR 46, CIT v. Manoj Jain , 287 ITR 285 and ITA No. 482/2010 decided by this Court on 5th May, 2010 Section 69B of the Act is not applicable if AO does not prove that the Assessee has made purchase which exceed the purchase recorded in the books of account 4. Dilshad Trading Co. 8………………………..Provisions of section 69B can be invoked 32-35 (P) if(i) it is found that the assessee has made…

JAYANTA KUMAR SARDAR,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR. , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1251/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…l No. 9468 of 2003 (Asst. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [2010] 328 ITR 515 (SC)) decided by the apex court on February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Delhi), CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal [2007] 294 ITR 143 (Delhi) and CIT v. Manoj Jain [2006] 287 ITR 285 (Delhi)." In the case of Asst. CIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. [2010] 328 ITR 515, (SC) held as under: "Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The opinion of the DVO perse is not an information for the purposes of…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 193/RPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…022 since nothing was found during search in assessee's premises with regard to investment in house, Tribunal was justified in deleting additions made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in construction - Held, yes (4) ClT VS. Manoj Jain 287 ITR 285(Delhi)- Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Procedure for - Tribunal having found as a fact that search on assessee's premises did not lead to seizure of any incriminating evidence to suggest that any income had not been or would not have been disclosed for tax purpose, deleted addition made by Assessing…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 192/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…022 since nothing was found during search in assessee's premises with regard to investment in house, Tribunal was justified in deleting additions made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in construction - Held, yes (4) ClT VS. Manoj Jain 287 ITR 285(Delhi)- Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Procedure for - Tribunal having found as a fact that search on assessee's premises did not lead to seizure of any incriminating evidence to suggest that any income had not been or would not have been disclosed for tax purpose, deleted addition made by Assessing…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 191/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…022 since nothing was found during search in assessee's premises with regard to investment in house, Tribunal was justified in deleting additions made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in construction - Held, yes (4) ClT VS. Manoj Jain 287 ITR 285(Delhi)- Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Procedure for - Tribunal having found as a fact that search on assessee's premises did not lead to seizure of any incriminating evidence to suggest that any income had not been or would not have been disclosed for tax purpose, deleted addition made by Assessing…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 190/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…022 since nothing was found during search in assessee's premises with regard to investment in house, Tribunal was justified in deleting additions made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in construction - Held, yes (4) ClT VS. Manoj Jain 287 ITR 285(Delhi)- Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Procedure for - Tribunal having found as a fact that search on assessee's premises did not lead to seizure of any incriminating evidence to suggest that any income had not been or would not have been disclosed for tax purpose, deleted addition made by Assessing…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 189/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…022 since nothing was found during search in assessee's premises with regard to investment in house, Tribunal was justified in deleting additions made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in construction - Held, yes (4) ClT VS. Manoj Jain 287 ITR 285(Delhi)- Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Procedure for - Tribunal having found as a fact that search on assessee's premises did not lead to seizure of any incriminating evidence to suggest that any income had not been or would not have been disclosed for tax purpose, deleted addition made by Assessing…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 188/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…022 since nothing was found during search in assessee's premises with regard to investment in house, Tribunal was justified in deleting additions made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in construction - Held, yes (4) ClT VS. Manoj Jain 287 ITR 285(Delhi)- Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Procedure for - Tribunal having found as a fact that search on assessee's premises did not lead to seizure of any incriminating evidence to suggest that any income had not been or would not have been disclosed for tax purpose, deleted addition made by Assessing…

VIJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 33(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 5244/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Vijay Kumar Seth, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 8, Vasant Enclave, Tax, Circle-33(1), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxps6514Q Assessee By : Sh. Karan Kumra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 5244/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Vijay Kumar Seth, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Flat No. 8, Vasant Enclave, Tax, Circle-33(1), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACXPS6514Q Assessee by : Sh. Karan Kumra, CA Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 ORDER Per N. S. Saini, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissio…

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…36 CTR (SC) 226 : (2010) 47 DTR (SC) 288—Ed.], CIT vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi (2009) 224 CTR (Del) 79 : (2009) 316 ITR 46 (Del), CIT vs. Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 211 CTR (Del) 576 : (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Del) and CIT vs. Manoj Jain (2006) 200 CTR (Del) 327 : (2006) 287 ITR 285 (Del)]. 10. Further, the reliance of learned counsel for the Revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in Mukundray K. Shah (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, the entire picture regarding the working of circular trading became apparent only after seeing the cash flow statement which emerged in the inquiry conducted by the Department on the ba…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NISHI MEHRA

ITA - 120 / 2000HC Delhi19 Feb 2015
Section 142ASection 153ASection 158B

…9468 of 2003 (Asstt. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 5151 (SC) decided by the apex court on February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi (2009) 316 ITR 46 (Delhi), CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Delhi) and CIT v. Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285 (Delhi).” 7. Likewise in Bajrang Lal (supra), too it was held that “it is settled law that the primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO.” 8. The decision in Lahsa Constructions (supra…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NISHI MEHRA

ITA/120/2000HC Delhi19 Feb 2015
Section 142ASection 153ASection 158B

…9468 of 2003 (Asstt. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 5151 (SC) decided by the apex court on February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi (2009) 316 ITR 46 (Delhi), CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Delhi) and CIT v. Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285 (Delhi).” 7. Likewise in Bajrang Lal (supra), too it was held that “it is settled law that the primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO.” 8. The decision in Lahsa Constructions (supra…

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN HUF

ITA/610/2012HC Delhi19 Oct 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 69B

…ring to the report of valuation officer in the absence of aiiy(sic) incriminating documents found in the course of a search no addition could be made by treating investment as undisclosed on the basis of any DYC’s report. The decision in CIT Vs. Mar Jam 287 ITR 285 is also to the same effect. In CIT Vs. Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. 151 ITR 79 (SC), their Lordships have once again reiterated that onus whether the assessee had received more consideration than what was stated in the documents of transfer, rested on the ITA 610/2012…

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN HUF

ITA - 610 / 2012HC Delhi19 Oct 2012
Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 69B

…ring to the report of valuation officer in the absence of aiiy(sic) incriminating documents found in the course of a search no addition could be made by treating investment as undisclosed on the basis of any DYC’s report. The decision in CIT Vs. Mar Jam 287 ITR 285 is also to the same effect. In CIT Vs. Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. 151 ITR 79 (SC), their Lordships have once again reiterated that onus whether the assessee had received more consideration than what was stated in the documents of transfer, rested on the 2012:DHC:6581-DB ITA 610/2012…

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

ITA/1968/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 698

…preme Couft in K.p. varghese vs ITo (198r) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs Shivakami company (p) Lrd. (r9BO 159 ITR 71 and the judgrnents of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, cIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and cIT vs Manoi Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7 . 'We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgrnents cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of iv{r. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances pe'nit an inference of understatetnent of consideration, it is not necessary to look for direct evidence of underst…

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

ITA/1819/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…reme Court in I{.p. Varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami company (p) Ltd (1986) 159 ITR 7i and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, cIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) z94 rrF. 143 and cIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7 . We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgrnents cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances pennit an inference of understaternent of consideration, it is not necessary to look for direct evidence of understate…

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

ITA/1971/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…me Court in KP. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CITvs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in IT A No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances permit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessary to look for direct evidence of understa…

CIT vs. LATA JAIN

ITA/1800/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 698

…eme Court in K.p. Varghese vs Iro Q981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shtvakami Company (p) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shalcuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, CIT vs Ashok l{hetrapal (2001) 294 ITR I43 and, CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7 . We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgrnents cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances perrnit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessary to look for direct evidence of understate…

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

ITA/1969/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 13Section 260ASection 69B

…me Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and C!Tvs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances permit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessary to look for . direct evidence of unders…

CIT vs. LATA JAIN

ITA/1811/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 26ft September.2012. Dateof Decision,@ + + rTA 1667/2010 ITA 8s/2011 CIT versus DINESH JAIN HUF ITA 1800/2010 ITA 1803/2010 ITA 1805/2010 ITA 1807/2010 ITA 1809/2010 ITA 181t/20r0 ITA 181212010 ITA 1813/2010 ITA 196712010 rTAt972/2010 CIT LATA JAIN ITA 1815/2010 rTA 1816/2010 ITA 1817120t0 ITA 1818/2010 ITA 1819/2010 rrA 1968/2010 rrA 1969/2070 + + + I'r ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent + -1- + + + + -r + + + + + -r ITA No. 166712010 & conn. Page I of2 Signing Date:07.09.2024 17:11:16 Certify that the digital and physical fil…

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3