What is CIT v. Union Tyres authority for?

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Union Tyres?

135 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Union Tyres come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 263, Section 147, Section 251(1)(a), Section 148.

CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556)

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 2257/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vikrant Puri vs. ACIT, vide ITA No.142 & 5789/Del/2013, order dated 4th March, 2016, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Union Tyres, 240 ITR 556 (Del) and CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 and the Ltd. vs. DCIT, 2013-TIOL-903-ITAT-DEL. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). 29. So far as the merit of the addition is concerned, he submitted that the valuation of shares of the as…

Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 1088/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vikrant Puri vs. ACIT, vide ITA No.142 & 5789/Del/2013, order dated 4th March, 2016, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Union Tyres, 240 ITR 556 (Del) and CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864 and the Ltd. vs. DCIT, 2013-TIOL-903-ITAT-DEL. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC). 29. So far as the merit of the addition is concerned, he submitted that the valuation of shares of the as…

Vikas Globalone Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 37Section 80I

…3.39 crores was determined for acquiring plants and nursery etc. He has submitted that no new source could be considered by the Ld. CIT(A) for enhancing the income and relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Del.) and CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864. Further, decisions of the Tribunal are also mentioned in the written submissions. He has submitted that compensation received on compulsory acquisition of trees and nursery is not taxable and relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Agriculture vs., Kailas…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1490/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…from the point of view of the taxability of the assessee”.—CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) : TC7R.576 and CIT vs. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) : (1957) TAX 10(3) - 313 : TC7R.653 applied. [para 9]  CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del) (pages 655-659 of PB-5): The Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: “The first appellate authority is invested with very wide powers under s. 251(1)(a) and once an assessment order is brought before the authority, his competence is not restricted to examining only those aspects of the assessment about which the assessee makes a g…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1488/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv, AshwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.S Rana CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…from the point of view of the taxability of the assessee”.—CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) : TC7R.576 and CIT vs. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) : (1957) TAX 10(3) - 313 : TC7R.653 applied. [para 9]  CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del) (pages 655-659 of PB-5): The Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: “The first appellate authority is invested with very wide powers under s. 251(1)(a) and once an assessment order is brought before the authority, his competence is not restricted to examining only those aspects of the assessment about which the assessee makes a g…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…consideration before the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court regarding the first appellate authority's power to take into account a new source of income and to consider the correctness of the view expressed earlier in case of CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556, and the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the view expressed in Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry's case (supra) still holds the feet and it was further held as under: “8. Looking from the aforesaid angles, the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, wh…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 978/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…consideration before the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court regarding the first appellate authority's power to take into account a new source of income and to consider the correctness of the view expressed earlier in case of CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556, and the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the view expressed in Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry's case (supra) still holds the feet and it was further held as under: “8. Looking from the aforesaid angles, the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, wh…

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 977/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…consideration before the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court regarding the first appellate authority's power to take into account a new source of income and to consider the correctness of the view expressed earlier in case of CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556, and the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the view expressed in Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry's case (supra) still holds the feet and it was further held as under: “8. Looking from the aforesaid angles, the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, wh…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 1122/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

…consideration before the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court regarding the first appellate authority's power to take into account a new source of income and to consider the correctness of the view expressed earlier in case of CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556, and the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the view expressed in Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry's case (supra) still holds the feet and it was further held as under: “8. Looking from the aforesaid angles, the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, wh…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2760/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR

Section 251(2)

…adur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443, Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co reported in (2001) 251 ITR 864, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Union Tires, reported in (1999) 240 ITR 556. 9. Now coming to facts of present case, it is observed that, in return of income, assessee declared income as per profit and loss account. Expenditure that has been added by Ld.CIT (A) under enhancement proceedings relate to business income declared by assessee. Admittedly, while arguing merits of case, Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that expen…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2759/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR

Section 251(2)

…adur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443, Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co reported in (2001) 251 ITR 864, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Union Tires, reported in (1999) 240 ITR 556. 9. Now coming to facts of present case, it is observed that, in return of income, assessee declared income as per profit and loss account. Expenditure that has been added by Ld.CIT (A) under enhancement proceedings relate to business income declared by assessee. Admittedly, while arguing merits of case, Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that expen…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2758/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR

Section 251(2)

…adur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443, Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co reported in (2001) 251 ITR 864, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Union Tires, reported in (1999) 240 ITR 556. 9. Now coming to facts of present case, it is observed that, in return of income, assessee declared income as per profit and loss account. Expenditure that has been added by Ld.CIT (A) under enhancement proceedings relate to business income declared by assessee. Admittedly, while arguing merits of case, Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that expen…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2757/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR

Section 251(2)

…adur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443, Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co reported in (2001) 251 ITR 864, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Union Tires, reported in (1999) 240 ITR 556. 9. Now coming to facts of present case, it is observed that, in return of income, assessee declared income as per profit and loss account. Expenditure that has been added by Ld.CIT (A) under enhancement proceedings relate to business income declared by assessee. Admittedly, while arguing merits of case, Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that expen…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1825/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR

Section 251(2)

…adur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443, Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co reported in (2001) 251 ITR 864, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Union Tires, reported in (1999) 240 ITR 556. 9. Now coming to facts of present case, it is observed that, in return of income, assessee declared income as per profit and loss account. Expenditure that has been added by Ld.CIT (A) under enhancement proceedings relate to business income declared by assessee. Admittedly, while arguing merits of case, Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that expen…

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1824/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR

Section 251(2)

…adur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443, Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co reported in (2001) 251 ITR 864, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Union Tires, reported in (1999) 240 ITR 556. 9. Now coming to facts of present case, it is observed that, in return of income, assessee declared income as per profit and loss account. Expenditure that has been added by Ld.CIT (A) under enhancement proceedings relate to business income declared by assessee. Admittedly, while arguing merits of case, Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that expen…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR

Section 251(2)

…adur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443, Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co reported in (2001) 251 ITR 864, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Union Tires, reported in (1999) 240 ITR 556. 9. Now coming to facts of present case, it is observed that, in return of income, assessee declared income as per profit and loss account. Expenditure that has been added by Ld.CIT (A) under enhancement proceedings relate to business income declared by assessee. Admittedly, while arguing merits of case, Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that expen…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR

Section 251(2)

…adur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443, Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co reported in (2001) 251 ITR 864, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Union Tires, reported in (1999) 240 ITR 556. 9. Now coming to facts of present case, it is observed that, in return of income, assessee declared income as per profit and loss account. Expenditure that has been added by Ld.CIT (A) under enhancement proceedings relate to business income declared by assessee. Admittedly, while arguing merits of case, Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that expen…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd., Noida vs. JCIT, Range- 1, Noida

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 7302/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR

Section 251(2)

…adur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria reported in 66 ITR 443, Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co reported in (2001) 251 ITR 864, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Union Tires, reported in (1999) 240 ITR 556. 9. Now coming to facts of present case, it is observed that, in return of income, assessee declared income as per profit and loss account. Expenditure that has been added by Ld.CIT (A) under enhancement proceedings relate to business income declared by assessee. Admittedly, while arguing merits of case, Ld.Counsel vehemently submitted that expen…

Chaya Devi Velaga, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 174/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Md. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.J.P. Anand, DR

Section 143(2)Section 251

…ore him. In that process, he relied on the following case law: i. Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Shri B.P. Sherafuddin, Hotel Gazala Inn in ITA No. 881 of 2009; :- 4 -: ii. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Union Tyres [240 ITR 556] (Delhi); iii. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (FB) CIT Vs. Sardarilal & Co., [251 ITR 864]; and raised the query that whether it is within the powers of the Ld.CIT(A) to enhance something which is fresh finding of the Ld.CIT(A) and the transaction is independent in nature. He should not have made the addition on fresh findings emanating from him.…

Abhilasha Construction, Jhansi vs. JCIT Range-6, Jhansi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 40

…appeal. Reliance was placed to ‘CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry’, (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) and ‘CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria’, (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC), (APB-244-254). Reliance ITA 314/Agr/2015 6 was also placed on ‘CITVs Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del); CIT Vs Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (F.B) and thus, on the strength of above precedents submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was legally unjustified in issuing directions for making separate addition in respect of Interest Income failing to take note of the fact on records that no such addition was made by the AO and no such issue was u…

CIT v. Union Tyres

What is CIT v. Union Tyres authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Union Tyres

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi

Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

Vikas Globalone Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

Jubilant Chemsys Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

Jubilant Biosys Ltd., Noida vs. JCIT, Range- 1, Noida

Chaya Devi Velaga, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

Abhilasha Construction, Jhansi vs. JCIT Range-6, Jhansi