Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.

318 ITR 376High Court2009#1410 most cited

What is Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. authority for?

Trade advances or commercial transactions do not fall within the definition of 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

81

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. · Bagmane Constructions · section 2(22)(e) · deemed dividend · trade advances · commercial transactions · definition of dividend · ITR 318 376 · non-taxable dividend

Also reported as

277 CTR 338

Sections most often in play

Section 115-OSection 115QSection 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 115qsection 142asection 150surrender of incomeaccumulated profitsmat creditsection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)section 158bdsection 80icshell company

Judgments citing Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

…to fall within the definition of the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). [Para 12]” 20. Similar view has been expressed by various Courts in CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt Ltd [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Raj Kumar [2009] 318 ITR 462 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nagindas M Kapadia [1989] 177 ITR 393 (Bombay), JamunaVernekarVs CIT [2021] 432 ITR 146 (Karnataka),CIT Vs. Amrik Singh [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H),and CIT VsAtul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad). This legal position is further fortified from the CBDT Circ…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF QURESHI, AGRA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 137/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ant. Similar decisions have also been delivered in following cases: (i) Jamuna Vernekar v. Dy. CIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 380 (Kar.) (ii) Bagmane Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 120 (Kar.) (iii) CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P.) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 376 (Delhi) 7.11 In this regard, the CBDT vide Circular No. 19 of 2017, dated 12.06.2017 has observed that some Courts in the recent past have held that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and in view of the same, the trade advances, which are in the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. MS SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATOTRIES AND EDUCATION LTD., , CHANDIGARH

ITA 93/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

…ing case laws: a. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC). b. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT. c. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT. d. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC e. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC), 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the above referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the company create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum received by the sha…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 857/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 856/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 845/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 844/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153A

…se laws:\n\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 843/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 833/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 832/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 829/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153A

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 732/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 731/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 730/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 729/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 728/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 727/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…ing case laws: a. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC). b. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT. c. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT. d. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC e. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC), 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the above referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the company create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum received by the sha…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 726/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 583/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 582/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., 277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany create mutual benefits and obligations, then the provision of treating any sum\nreceived by th…

Showing 1–20 of 81 · Page 1 of 5

Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. (318 ITR 376) — Cited in 81 Judgments | BharatTax