How many judgments cite CIT v. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd.?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd. (265 CTR 250), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 24, Section 14A, Section 194-I, Section 2(13), Section 37(1).

CIT v. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd.

265 CTR 250High Court2014#4947 most cited

What is CIT v. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Income from letting out a property along with its amenities is assessable as business income, not income from house property, when the agreements for letting and services are entered into contemporaneously with the intention to enjoy the entire property as a whole for business purposes.

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

Also referred to as

CIT v. Velankani Information Systems · business income · income from house property · lease rental · amenities · services · contemporaneously · intention of parties · inseparability

Also reported as

218 Taxmann 88

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 24 Section 14A Section 194-I Section 2(13)Section 37(1)Section 10 Section 119

Issues it is cited on

profits and gains of business or profession section 194 section 24 section 19 salary scrutiny assessment section 80 company section 143 business section 14 section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…d, operations involved in such letting out is in nature of business and income derived therefrom has to be treated as business income and not income from property. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in case of CIT vs Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd (265 CTR 250) wherein Hon’ble Court held that where agreements for letting out of building and provision of services were entered into contemporaneously and object was to enjoy entire property as a whole, which was necessary for carrying on business, income could not be separated on basis of separate agreements and therefore, income from letting out was asses…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 206/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 24

…sources' and the same is not automatically taxable under the head 'income from house property'. 10.7 Attention in this regard was also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd.: 265 CTR 250, wherein the Court held that in case the property is leased as a whole alongwith amenities/facilities, then the lease rental received therefrom would be taxable as business income. The finding of the Court as relied reads as under: "24. This doctrine of inseparability finds a place in these two provisions. The inseparability referred to in the sa…

DELTA COLONIZERS LTD.,NEWDELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed on ground no

ITA 1423/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv

Section 24

…rs of Hon’ble Supreme Court & High Court and co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal including judgment in the case of Sultan Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 51 ITR 353, judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems P. Ltd. 265 CTR 250 (Kar.) and orders co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad in the case of ITO vs. P.N. Shukla [1985] 14 ITD 105 (All.) and at Hyderabad in the case of DDIT vs. Shri G. Raghuram ITA No. 6/Hyd/2010, submitted that where the assessee made to agreements one for let out of the property and another for providing amenities and there is a doubt in…

DCIT-1(2) (2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. N V DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 6325/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6325/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dcit-1(2)(2), Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. N.V.Developers Pvt. Ltd. G-4, Ground Floor, Khetan Bhavan, 198, Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgage, Mumbai -400 020 Pan: Aaccn-4828-J ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S /Shri Pankaj Kumar & B.K.Bagchi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Mehil Golvala & Darshit Naik सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai ( In Short ‘The Cit(A) ’) Dated 25/07/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Solitary Issue In This Appeal Is; Whether Rental Income Received By The Assessee From Information Technology Park Is To Be Assessed As “Income From House Property” Or “Income From Business”.

For Appellant: S /Shri Pankaj Kumar and B.K.BagchiFor Respondent: S/Shri Mehil Golvala and Darshit Naik

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ बी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 6325/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2012-13) DCIT-1(2)(2), Room No.535, 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/s. N.V.Developers Pvt. Ltd. G-4, Ground Floor, Khetan Bhavan, 198, Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgage, Mumbai -400 020 PAN: AACCN-4828-J ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : S /Shri Pankaj Kumar and B.…

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/710/2017HC Karnataka26 May 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260A

…essee does not want to press substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2. It is further submitted that substantial question of law Nos.3 to 6 have already been answered by a bench of this court in 'CIT VS. VELANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED, (2014) 2 ITR-OL 138 KAR. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue was unable to dispute the same. 3. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is not necessary for us to answer substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 as they have been not 6 pressed by the assessee. A division bench…

M/S. RAO COMPUTER CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/708/2017HC Karnataka26 May 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260A

…erverse?" 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have been answered by a bench of this court in 'CIT VS. VELANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD', (2014) 2 ITR-OL 138 KAR. The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. 3. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. A division bench of this court in VELANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD supra has held as under: 5 25. The doctrine of inseparability finds…

M/S. RAO COMPUTER CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/709/2017HC Karnataka26 May 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260A

…ssee does not want to press substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2. It is further submitted that substantial question of law Nos.3 to 6 have already been answered by a bench of this court in 'CIT VS. VELANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED', (2014) 2 ITR-OL 138 KAR. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue was unable to dispute the same. 3. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is not necessary for us to answer substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 as they have been not pressed by the assessee. A division bench of t…

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/711/2017HC Karnataka26 May 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FAERY ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6419/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit-3(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Faery Estates Pvt. Room No.607, 6Th Floor Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 70, Nagindas Master Road Mumbai – 400 020 Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacf5718K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT DB-II), MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ACIT-3(1)(2) Vs. M/s. Faery Estates Pvt. Room No.607, 6th Floor Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 70, Nagindas Master Road Mumbai – 400 020 Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 PAN/GIR No.AAACF5718K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Rahul Raman, CIT DR Assessee by Shri Chetan Karia Date of Hearing 07/07/2020 Date of Pronouncement 13/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (J.M): This appeal in ITA No.6419/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, M…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA/84/2010HC Karnataka05 May 2020

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 142(1)Section 145Section 154Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ITA NO.84/2010 BETWEEN: 1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1) C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NO.1, FALCON HOUSE, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK A KU…

ACIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FAERY ESTATES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4261/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Karia, AR

Section 22Section 24Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent M/s. Faery Estates Pvt. 4261/Mum/16 2012-13 Ltd., ACIT-3(1)(2), 70, Nagindas Master MUMBAI Road, Fort, MUMBAI 4262/Mum/16 2011-12 [PAN: AAACF5718K] Appellant by : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT-DR, Respondent by : Shri Chetan Karia, AR Date of Hearing : 25-06-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19-08-2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A.M: These two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the order(s) of the Commissioner of Income Ta…

AMBATTUR INFRA DEVELOPERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.689 & 690/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai.

For Appellant: Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 194I

…e were contemporaneously entered into. According to the ld. Authorised Representative these agreements had to be construed together. Relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems (P) Ltd, (2014) 265 CTR 250, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that in a similar situation where an information technology park had rent out its premises through two separate agreements, their lordships held income to be assessable ITA Nos.689 & 690/18 :- 6 -: under the head income from business. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. AMBATTUR INFRA DEVELOPERS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 376/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.195 & 196/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Income Tax, Ambattur, Business Circle Xiii, Chennai 600 058 Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Gopikrishna, IRS, JCIT

Section 194I

…e were contemporaneously entered into. According to the ld. Authorised Representative these agreements had to be construed together. Relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems (P) Ltd, (2014) 265 CTR 250, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that in a similar situation where an information technology park had rent out its premises through two separate agreements, their lordships held income to be assessable under the head income from business. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Propertie…

AMBATTUR INFRA DEVELOPERS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 196/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Gopikrishna, IRS, JCIT

Section 194I

…e were contemporaneously entered into. According to the ld. Authorised Representative these agreements had to be construed together. Relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems (P) Ltd, (2014) 265 CTR 250, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that in a similar situation where an information technology park had rent out its premises through two separate agreements, their lordships held income to be assessable under the head income from business. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Propertie…

AMBATTUR INFRA DEVELOPERS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Gopikrishna, IRS, JCIT

Section 194I

…e were contemporaneously entered into. According to the ld. Authorised Representative these agreements had to be construed together. Relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems (P) Ltd, (2014) 265 CTR 250, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that in a similar situation where an information technology park had rent out its premises through two separate agreements, their lordships held income to be assessable under the head income from business. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Propertie…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1849/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd. No.1, The Falcon House, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent Pan:Aabcp 2091E

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Panda, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sudheendra, CA

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd. No.1, The Falcon House, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent PAN:AABCP 2091E Appellant by : Shri B.K.Panda, CIT(DR). Respondent by : Shri Sudheendra, CA. Date of hearing : 07/11/2017 Date of pronouncement : 17/01/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the o…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PINNAMANENI PARANDHAMAIAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITTA/708/2017HC Telangana21 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 260Section 260A

NV PROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

ITA 3368/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Nv Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 5(2), Mumbai C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Floor 148, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn4827H Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 28

…eration as to whether income from IT Park has to be assessed as income from business and profession or income from house property has been settled by various judicial pronouncements. Karnataka High Court in the case of Velankani Informations Systems (P) Ltd., 265 CTR 250 held as under:- I. Section 28(i), read with sections 22 and 56, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income - Chargeable as [Rental income] - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee-company let out specialised buildings in STP and provided comprehensive facilities to IT industry - Whether, where agreements for letting out of building and provision o…

M/S PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 806/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.806/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Prestige Garden Constructions P. Ltd, The Falcon House No.1, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aabcp2901E V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khindha, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, Cit Heard On : 25.05.2016 Pronounced On : 10.06.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khindha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT

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

…ITA.806/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.806/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Prestige Garden Constructions P. Ltd, The Falcon House No.1, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant PAN : AABCP2901E v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 5(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Padamchand Khindha, CA Revenue by : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT Heard on : 25.05.2016 Pronounced on : 10.06.2016 O R D E…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2