A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala

8 STC 561Supreme Court of India1957#5664 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 37(1)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80-IESection 80JJAA

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 2(7)section 14a disallowancereal income theorysection 80jjasection 80jjaamat creditweighted deductionprohibited by lawsection 36(1)(viii)transfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisition

Judgments citing A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…ot amount to either 'production' or 'manufacture'. The term 'processing' has not been included in section 35B(1A), therefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1A). [Para 68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by interpretation.…

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 914/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…ount to either 'production' or\n'manufacture'. The term 'processing' has not been included in section 35B(1A),\ntherefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section\n35B(1A). [Para 68]\"\n17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the\nSupreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where\nthe language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further,\nin Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589\n(SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions must be strictly construed\nand cannot be extended by interpretat…

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…ot amount to either 'production' or 'manufacture'. The term 'processing' has not been included in section 35B(1A), therefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1A). [Para 68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by interpretation.…

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…ot amount to either 'production' or 'manufacture'. The term 'processing' has not been included in section 35B(1A), therefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1A). [Para 68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by interpretation.…

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 850/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…ot amount to either 'production' or 'manufacture'. The term 'processing' has not been included in section 35B(1A), therefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1A). [Para 68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by interpretation.…

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…ot amount to either 'production' or 'manufacture'. The term 'processing' has not been included in section 35B(1A), therefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1A). [Para 68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by interpretation.…

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 848/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…ount to either 'production' or\n'manufacture'. The term 'processing' has not been included in section 35B(1A),\ntherefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section\n35B(1A). [Para 68]\"\n17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the\nSupreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where\nthe language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further,\nin Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589\n(SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions must be strictly construed\nand cannot be extended by interpretat…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…ot amount to either 'production' or 'manufacture'. The term 'processing' has not been included in section 35B(1A), therefore, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1A). [Para 68]” 17. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561 (SC), the Supreme Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and where the language is clear, there is no scope for any inference or equity. Further, in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC), it was held that exemptions and exclusions must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by interpretation.…

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

…arly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. Sune off Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of bullin stared the principle as follows (page 661 of AIR 1957 SC): "If the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If on the other hand, the case is met covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can…

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

…arly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. Sune off Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of bullin stared the principle as follows (page 661 of AIR 1957 SC): "If the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If on the other hand, the case is met covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can…

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 56/VNS/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…early said. There is no room for any intendment There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principle as follows (page 661 of AIR 1957 SC): Tf the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four comers of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can be…

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 55/VNS/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…early said. There is no room for any intendment There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principle as follows (page 661 of AIR 1957 SC): Tf the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four comers of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can be…

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U. P.. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…early said. There is no room for any intendment There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principle as follows (page 661 of AIR 1957 SC): Tf the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four comers of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can be…

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 53/VNS/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…early said. There is no room for any intendment There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principle as follows (page 661 of AIR 1957 SC): Tf the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four comers of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can be…

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 52/VNS/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…early said. There is no room for any intendment There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principle as follows (page 661 of AIR 1957 SC): Tf the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four comers of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can be…

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 51/VNS/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…early said. There is no room for any intendment There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principle as follows (page 661 of AIR 1957 SC): Tf the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four comers of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can be…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 720/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

…arly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principle as follows (page 661 of AlR 1957 SC): 'If the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can…

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.A, S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

…arly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One must only look fairly at the language used. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principle as follows (page 661 of AlR 1957 SC): 'If the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statue no tax can…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

C.A. No.-004928 - 2018Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 65Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

…A fiscal statute has to be construed strictly, if something is not subject to levy of tax clearly expressed in the statute, the same cannot be brought within the tax net by way of interpretation as was held in A.V. Fernandez, [1957] 8 STC 561 (SC). It is a settled proposition that it is the clear words of law and not the intention of the Legislature, which is to be examined to find out what the taxing statute has clearly said. There is no room for intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing…

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

C.A. No.-006770-006770 - 2004Supreme Court20 Aug 2015

…; and also reiterated by the apex Court in the second Builders Association of India case [1993] 88 STC 248 (SC); [1992] 2 MTCR 542. In the light of the above, we see no merit in the stand taken for the respondents relying upon the decisions reported in [1957] 8 STC 561 (SC) (A. V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala) and [1969] 23 STC 447 (Mad.) (Kumarasamy Pathar v. State of Madras) that the omission to exclude certain items relating to non-taxable turnovers is of no consequence and does not affect or undermine the validity of the impugned proceedings. Consequently, applying the ratio of the ab…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2