How many judgments cite CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills?

180 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills (296 ITR 238), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 57(iv), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 263, Section 10(37), Section 143(3), Section 45(5).

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills

296 ITR 238High Court2008#532 most cited

What is CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills authority for?

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

180

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills · Sohana Woollen Mills · Section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · mere audit objection · erroneous and prejudicial · prejudicial to revenue · CIT revision · PCIT revision

Sections most often in play

Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 263 Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 142(1)Section 145B

Issues it is cited on

section 145b section 45(5)section 145a(b)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)section 145b(1)enhanced compensation section 145a compulsory acquisition lack of enquiry section 143(3a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills

M/S Om Rudra Priya Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd., Sawai Madhopur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…on 263 only to meet the objection of the audit party and, therefore, the audit note cannot be a basis of invoking the provisions of section 263. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (2007) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) 5 M/s. Om Rudra Priya Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd., Sawai Madhopur. Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust vs. CIT (E) (2017) 51 CCH 464 (Kol. Trib.) Surinder Kumar Jain vs. ITO (2016) 48 CCH 158 (Del. Trib.) Dashmesh Motors Muktsar vs. PCIT (2016) 47 CCH 506 (Asr. Trib.) 4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT D/R has submitted that since there is a…

M/S Samrat Roller Flour Mills Ltd., Alwar vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 698/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: The Ao To Prove The Creditworthiness Of Investors & Genuineness Of The Transaction.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…it objection itself and therefore, it cannot be said that assessment order is passed by the AO without making proper enquiry. Thus, only on the basis of audit objection, section 263 cannot be invoked as held in the cases of CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (2007) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) M/s Samrat Roller Flour Mills Lt. vs. Pr.CIT (HC), SarlabenBhansali Charities Trust Vs. CIT(E) (2017) 51 CCH 464 (Kol.) (Trib.), Surinder Kumar Jain Vs. ITO (2016) 48 CCH 158 (Del.) (Trib.), Dashmesh Motors MuktsarVs. PCIT (2016) 47 CCH 506 (Asr.) (Trib.) and Jaswinder Singh Vs. CIT (2012) 150 TTJ 33 (Chd.) (Trib.) 7. The ld. AR further s…

Kumar Pappu Singh, Tanuku vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…ion of the assessee. In the light of the above and in view of the Explanation 2 to sec.263 inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the LD.Pr.CIT, held that the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sohana Woollen Mills (296 ITR 238) relied upon by the assessee has no application and accordingly held that the assessment made by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed the AO to add the difference between the fair market value and the actual consideration of shares amounting to Rs.4,74,57,000/- as income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(c)…

Dr. Balkishan Das, Rohtak vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2229/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12] Dr. Balkishan Dass Vs. The Pr. C.I.T 78, Mansarover Colony Rohtak Rohtak Pan : Abmpd 8044 L [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…n could be exercised if the Commissioner [Audit] is satisfied that the basis for exercise of jurisdiction existed. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238. 9. Substantial question of law admitted by the Hon'ble High Court reads as under: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in annulling the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961?” 10. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: “The assessee held certain machinery and was in…

Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Godara[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Cit, Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kol-8, 54/1, Rafi C/O-S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 86, Ahmed Kidwai Road, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata-700016. Pan-Aaaaa2455 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 Order

Section 143Section 143(1)(e)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12] vs CIT, Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kol-8, 54/1, Rafi C/o-S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 86, Ahmed Kidwai Road, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata-700016. PAN-AAAAA2455 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed ag…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 816/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…s Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the CIT finds that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Mere audit objection and merely because a different ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 to 2012-13 19 view could b…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Hqrs.-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 263(1)

…s Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the CIT finds that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Mere audit objection and merely because a different view could be taken, were not enough to say that the order of the AO was erroneous or prejudici…

Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/KOL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017

Section 11Section 11aSection 12ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…s Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the CIT finds that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Mere audit objection and merely because a different view could be taken, were not enough to say that the order of the AO was erroneous or prejudici…

Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Section 11Section 11aSection 12ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…s Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the CIT finds that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Mere audit objection and merely because a different view could be taken, were not enough to say that the order of the AO was erroneous or prejudici…

Raghunath Exporters, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 32(2) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

ITA 92/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…atter, the impugned notice issued under section 263 could not be sustained. The said notice, therefore, was to be quashed and set aside.” Similarly, Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P&H), wherein it was held as under:- “Mere audit objection and merely because a different view could be taken, are not enough to say that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The jurisdiction could be exercised if the Commissioner audit is satisfied that the basis for exercise of jurisdi…

Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1254/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…o.1254/Kol/2014 Saregama India Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 14 Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the CIT finds that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Mere audit objection and merely because a different view could be taken, were not enough to say that the order of the AO was erroneous or prejudici…

Luxmi Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cen-2, Kolkata

ITA 731/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 731/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Luxmi Co. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Central-2 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaact 8466 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017. Order

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT

Section 10(30)Section 10(34)Section 14Section 263Section 43BSection 80Section 80I

…minary objection raised by the ld.counsel for the assessee is that 263 cannot be initiated on the basis of audit objection. In this regard reliance was plced on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohana Wollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P&H). The ld. DR however submitted that any fact coming to the notice of the CIT even through audit objection if the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue then section 263 can be invoked. 18. We have considered the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the Assessee. We find that the…

Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the revision proceedings as initiated by the Ld. CIT are invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed. To support our view, we rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "Mere audit objection and merely because a different view could be taken, are not enough to say that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The jurisdiction could be exercised if the Commissioner 19 audit is satisfied that the basis for e…

M/S Mypol Polymers Technologies Private

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

COP/25/2016HC Karnataka15 Sept 2016

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 54F

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI I.T.A. NO.25 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BANGALORE-560095. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-15(3), 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND K.V. ADV.,) AND: SMT. HEMA KRISHNAMURTHY 19, ORCHARD VIEW APARTMENTS BELLARY MAIN ROAD SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE-560080 PAN: AFJPP 6996A. ..…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Refex Refrigerants Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. K.N. Dhandapani, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. M. Narayanan, Addl. CIT(Retd)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

…asis of audit objection is not tenable in law. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while coming to such a conclusion has taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills reported as 296 ITR 238 and the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of JeewanLal (1929) Ltd.,Vs. ACIT reported as 108 ITR 407 (Calcutta). The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (supra) has held that mere audit objection and merely because a different view can be taken are not enough to say that order of t…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5677/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…on application of his own minds and discretion rather than note put-up by the Audit party. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the following decisions; i) Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. vs ACIT, 108 ITR 407(Cal.)(HC) ii) CIT vs. Sohann Woolen Mills, 296 ITR 238(P&H)(HC) iii) B&A Plantation and Industries Ltd vs CIT, 290 ITR 395 (Gauhati)(HC). (ii) The AO has applied his mind in detail with regard to computation of income, claim of deduction regarding 10B Units, including losses and depreciation right from assessment year 1997-98 onwards. Further all the assessments for these years were completed under…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4875/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263