CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.

39 ITR 706High Court1960#1059 most cited

What is CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. authority for?

Income is taxable only if it has genuinely accrued to the assessee, based on the principle of real income, regardless of the accounting method followed. Tax can only be levied on real, not hypothetical or imaginary, income.

103

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. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. · 39 ITR 706 · real income principle · accrual of income · mercantile system of accounting · hypothetical income · section 28 · section 143(3) · right to receive income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 198Section 199Section 147Section 211Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 28(iv)surrender of incomeright to receivemercantile system of accountingloose paperssection 28section 234asection 133aincome-tax officersection 131section 115bbesection 139(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.

VIJAYRAGHAVAN SUBRAMANIAN IYER,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27 3 5 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3465/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 198Section 250

…maintained on cash system or under the mercantile system. If the accounts are maintained under the mercantile system what has to be seen is whether income can be said to have really accrued to the assessee-company. In H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1960] 39 ITR 706 , the Bombay High Court had said: "... Even so, [the failure to produce account losses] we shall proceed on the footing that, the assessee-company having followed the mercantile systme of account, there must have been entries made in its books in the accounting year in respect of the the amount of the commission. In our judgment, we would not be j…

ITO-41(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. K S CHAMANKAR ENTERPRISES, MALAD (E),MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4586/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer, Ward V/S. K S Chamankar Enterprises, – 41(3)(2), Room No. 851, बनाम B-15, Pethe Nagar, Kedarmal 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Road, Malad(E), Mumbai – Bandra Kurla Complex, 400097, Maharashtra Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfk5823R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichandani, Adv. [virtually appear]For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra,(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28

…be said to have really accrued to the assessee company. The Court referred to the judgement of the income can be said to have really accrued to the assessee company. The Court referred to the judgment of the Court in H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom) which view was approved by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 349 : (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC). What can therefore, be assessed is real income as income-tax is a tax on income, The test therefore, before income can be taxed is whether there is real accrual of income. In our opinion, the ratio of that judgement full…

WEIR MINERALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 4713/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2012-13]

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year 2012-13] M/s. Weir Mineral (India) Pvt. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ltd. Office Unit No.912 and Tax, Circle-27(1), 914, 9th Floor, DLF Tower, Vs New Delhi A Plot No.-10, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110025 PAN-AAACI0519D Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Ms. Sumish Murgai, AR and Shri Kashish Gupta, CA Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.06.2025…

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…TR 144 (SC) Pragati Power Corporation vs. ACIT CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Morvi Industies Ltd. vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC) Poona Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs CIT(1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC) Kashiparekh (H.M.) & Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom) State Bank of Travencore vs CIT(1986) 158 ITR 102 (Ker) Supreme Court held in this case that the question, whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee Co. in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity, has to be considered by taking the probability or improbability of realisation in a realistic manner. Tribunal ha…

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 67/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…llabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) ; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC) State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) and H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom) : TC 39R.791 applied. " Highway Construction Company P.Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 702 • In view of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, it is crystal clear that the impugned addition of alleged income made is not the real income but it only represents an imaginary and hypothetical income, which is legally not sustainable.” 6. The ld DR is he…

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 66/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…llabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) ; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC) State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) and H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom) : TC 39R.791 applied. " Highway Construction Company P.Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 702 • In view of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, it is crystal clear that the impugned addition of alleged income made is not the real income but it only represents an imaginary and hypothetical income, which is legally not sustainable.” 6. The ld DR is he…

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 65/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…llabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) ; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC) State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) and H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom) : TC 39R.791 applied. " Highway Construction Company P.Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 702 • In view of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, it is crystal clear that the impugned addition of alleged income made is not the real income but it only represents an imaginary and hypothetical income, which is legally not sustainable.” 6. The ld DR is he…

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 64/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…llabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) ; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC) State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) and H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom) : TC 39R.791 applied. " Highway Construction Company P.Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 702 • In view of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, it is crystal clear that the impugned addition of alleged income made is not the real income but it only represents an imaginary and hypothetical income, which is legally not sustainable.” 6. The ld DR is he…

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 63/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…llabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) ; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC) State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) and H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom) : TC 39R.791 applied. " Highway Construction Company P.Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 702 • In view of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, it is crystal clear that the impugned addition of alleged income made is not the real income but it only represents an imaginary and hypothetical income, which is legally not sustainable.” 6. The ld DR is he…

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 62/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…llabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) ; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC) State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) and H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom) : TC 39R.791 applied. " Highway Construction Company P.Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 702 • In view of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, it is crystal clear that the impugned addition of alleged income made is not the real income but it only represents an imaginary and hypothetical income, which is legally not sustainable.” 6. The ld DR is he…

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 61/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…llabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) ; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC) State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) and H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom) : TC 39R.791 applied. " Highway Construction Company P.Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 702 • In view of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, it is crystal clear that the impugned addition of alleged income made is not the real income but it only represents an imaginary and hypothetical income, which is legally not sustainable.” 6. The ld DR is he…

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…em or under the mercantile system. If the accounts are maintained under the mercantile system what has to be seen is whether income can be said to have really accrued to the assessee-company. in H.M. Kashiparekh & co. ltd. v. commissioner of Income Tax (1960) 39 ITR 706 the Bombay High court had said :- "Even so, (the failure to produce account losses we shall proceed on the footing that the assessee- company having followed the mercantile system of account there must have been entries made in its books in the accounting year in respect of the amount of commission in our judgment we would not be justified in atta…

SANGUINE MEDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NCW-20(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 882/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangala (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Marudhu Pandyan (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ssed and revenue authorities are debarred from indulging in artificial assessments of the assessee: - (i) CIT vs Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co., 46 ITR 144 (SC) (1962) (ii) CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd, 89 ITR 266 (SC) (1973) (iii) HM Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd vs CIT, 39 ITR 706 (BOM) (1960) (iv) Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs CIT, 57 ITR 521 (SC) (1965) (v) CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd, 78 ITR 788 (CAL), 1970 (vi) Sanjeev Woollen Mills vs CIT, (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) 8. The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of one such entities i.e., DCIT vs. M/s Empower India Ltd. (ITA Nos. 3205/Mum/2019 & ors. order dated 23.10.20…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY vs. SHRI VAZHYIEL HOUSE NARAYANAN KUTTY MENON, BELLARY

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1545/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate

…. The transfer of the amount to the profit and loss account is bereft of any significance.” A.13.5. We also refer to decision by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on concept of real income, emphasised in case of Kashiparekh and Co Ltd (HM) vs. CIT, reported in (1960) 39 ITR 706. Hon’ble Court held that, surrender of income even after closure of accounting year may make no difference to the concept of real income. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, relied on view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd reported in (1973) 89 ITR 266 as under: “The principle of real income is not to be subordinate…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…. The transfer of the amount to the profit and loss account is bereft of any significance.” A.13.5. We also refer to decision by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on concept of real income, emphasised in case of Kashiparekh and Co Ltd (HM) vs. CIT, reported in (1960) 39 ITR 706. Hon’ble Court held that, surrender of income even after closure of accounting year may make no difference to the concept of real income. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, relied on view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd reported in (1973) 89 ITR 266 as under: “The principle of real income is not to be subordinate…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…. The transfer of the amount to the profit and loss account is bereft of any significance.” A.13.5. We also refer to decision by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on concept of real income, emphasised in case of Kashiparekh and Co Ltd (HM) vs. CIT, reported in (1960) 39 ITR 706. Hon’ble Court held that, surrender of income even after closure of accounting year may make no difference to the concept of real income. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, relied on view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd reported in (1973) 89 ITR 266 as under: “The principle of real income is not to be subordinate…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…. The transfer of the amount to the profit and loss account is bereft of any significance.” A.13.5. We also refer to decision by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on concept of real income, emphasised in case of Kashiparekh and Co Ltd (HM) vs. CIT, reported in (1960) 39 ITR 706. Hon’ble Court held that, surrender of income even after closure of accounting year may make no difference to the concept of real income. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, relied on view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd reported in (1973) 89 ITR 266 as under: “The principle of real income is not to be subordinate…

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7740/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

…Court in CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315) which refer to the decision in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (225 ITR 746). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (39 ITR 706) which has held that “the principle of real income is not to be so subordinated as to amount virtually to negation of it when a surrender or concession or rebate in respect of managing agency commission is made agreed to or given on grounds of commercial expediency simply because it takes place sometime after the close of an accounting year. In ex…

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7739/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

…Court in CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315) which refer to the decision in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (225 ITR 746). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (39 ITR 706) which has held that “the principle of real income is not to be so subordinated as to amount virtually to negation of it when a surrender or concession or rebate in respect of managing agency commission is made agreed to or given on grounds of commercial expediency simply because it takes place sometime after the close of an accounting year. In ex…

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(IT) CIR. 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 53/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

…Court in CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315) which refer to the decision in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (225 ITR 746). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (39 ITR 706) which has held that “the principle of real income is not to be so subordinated as to amount virtually to negation of it when a surrender or concession or rebate in respect of managing agency commission is made agreed to or given on grounds of commercial expediency simply because it takes place sometime after the close of an accounting year. In ex…

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (39 ITR 706) — Cited in 103 Judgments | BharatTax