Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 5(2), Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 9, Section 148.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.?

658 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169), spanning 2012 to 2026.

342 ITR 169High Court2012#87 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. authority for?

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

658

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease · 342 ITR 169 · Section 68 · cash credit · share application money · identity genuineness creditworthiness · onus of proof · Assessing Officer inquiry · source of source · paper company · accommodation entry · Section 131

Also reported as

18 Taxmann.com 217

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 5(2)Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 9 Section 148 Section 6 Section 131

Issues it is cited on

paper company share capital and share premium source of source creditworthiness of the creditor share application money entry operator live link addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 accommodation entry section 131 genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

ITO -24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta, HUF, Mumbai

ITA 4013/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…High Court has dealt with this issue of section 68 by relying on various decisions like N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., A Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 205 ITR 802 (SC), Full Bench decision of Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del), Nova Promoters Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del), CIT Vs. Nipun Builders Ltd. 350 ITR 407 and held that mere issuance of cheque and providing bank detail would not be sufficient to discharge the liability of assessee in view of the link between entry providers and incriminating evidence. In this case of Swati Bajaj, Hon'ble Kolkata High Court has mentioned that several assessees who were…

Kaushik Chandravadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2064/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 68

…ssue of section 68 by relying on various decisions like N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., A Govindarajulu 16 Kaushik Chandravadan Parikh Mudaliar Vs. CIT 205 ITR 802 (SC), Full Bench decision of Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del), Nova Promoters Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del), CIT Vs. Nipun Builders Ltd. 350 ITR 407 and held that mere issuance of cheque and providing bank detail would not be sufficient to discharge the liability of assessee in view of the link between entry providers and incriminating evidence. In this case of Swati Bajaj, Hon'ble Kolkata High Court has mentioned that several assessees who were…

Radiant Commercial & Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 657/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

…company but has hardly any business and earning therefrom during the year. The Ld. D.R cited series of decisions in his support namely: i) CIT vs. N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 42taxmann.com339 (Delhi) ii) CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd [2012]342 ITR 169 iii) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) iv) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) 6 I.T.A. No.657/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Radiant Commercial & Investments Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. D.R therefore prayed that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is very reasoned and speaking one and therefore the appeal of the assessee may…

Shobha Tomar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 373/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Shobha Tomar DCIT, Vs. B-4, Govind Marg, Adarsh C.C.1, Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALPT 4876 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G. M. Mehta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anoop Singh, Ad…

Amarpadma Credits Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Baid, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

…of the AO, then the amount of credit would be treated as income without anything further to be done. Further, reliance is placed on the decisions of CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers P. Ltd.-350 ITR 407(Del); CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. - 342 ITR 169 (Del.); CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. 333 ITR 119 (Del.); and - Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT-386 ITR 162 (Cal)]. 5.5.1 In this case, it is clear that the appellant has not been able to discharge its onus to prove the nature and source of impugned credits to the satisfaction of the AO/ NFAC. Therefore, the addition made by th…

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…013] 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-V N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. 10. A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 802 (SC). 11. CIT v. Nova Promoters Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 217/206 Taxman 207/342 ITR 169 (Delhi). 12. CIT v. Oasis Hospitality (P.) Ltd. [2011] 9 taxmann.com 179/148 Taxman 247/333 ITR 119 (Delhi). 13. [2019] 109 taxmann.com 53 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NDR Promoters (P.) Ltd.v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. 14. [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Suman Poddar v. Income Tax Officer. 15. The Hon'ble Suprem…

ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. Vinod Rice Meal Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2048/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

…e is from any particulars source, It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income it is income from a source which has already been taxed.” x) a) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease Private Limited [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.R. Portfolio Private Limited 206 (2014) DLT 97 (DB)(Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. MAF Academy P. Ltd. 206 (2014) DLT 277(DB) (Del):- By refereeing to these cases the Learned AO has mentioned that the following cases have already been referred earlier in the above mentioned decisions of Delhi…

Ksj Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

ITA 1110/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1110/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Ksj Infrastructure The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Grant Lane, Room Central Circle -1(1), No. 218, Kolkata – 700 012. Chennai – 600 0034. [Pan:Aadcc-5913-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, FCA and Shri. Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)Section 153CSection 234BSection 68

…were classified into two separate categories observing as under: "11, We have heard the Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, who has relied upon decisions of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of income Tax Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 2012) 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.R. Portfolio Put. Ltd., 206 (2014) DLT 97 (DB) (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. MAF Academy P. Ltd., 206 (2014) DLT 277 (DB) (Del), The aforesaid decisions mentioned above refer to the earlier decisions of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd., (1994] 205 ITR 98…

Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glint Infraporjects Private .Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 2166/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg5620L Co No. 131/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No.2166/Mum/2023 For A.Y. 12-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant/ Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mirza Azhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02..2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ial precedents:-  CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd (SC) 159 ITR 78.  PCIT-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd (Del) 96 taxmann.com 403.  CIT-1 Vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd (Guj) 42 taxmann.com 473.  CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169.  PCIT-13 vs Veedhala Tower Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 819 of 2015) (Bom). 8.3 I have gone through the assessment order and also, submissions of the appellant very carefully. I find that the AO has merely relied upon the information provided by the investigation wing to treat the two entities who have given loan to the assessee as bogus entities. While t…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Manish Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 774/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…e would like to discuss the judgments so relied by learned CIT DR. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. We have gone through all the aforesaid cases and rather have found that the said judgments support the case of assesse companies, as the main proposition which has been laid down in all the aforesaid judgments is that "Assessing Officer ought to co…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Manish Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 773/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Manish Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 772/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

Ankit Impex Marketing Services (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward--8(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 620/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 619 & 620/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Ankit Impex Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd.,...Appellant 46C, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aalcs9318R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-8(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 68

…d. He recorded the similar finding in A.Y. 2014-15. Thereafter ld. Assessing Officer all of a sudden discussed the provision of section 68 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. Reported in 342 ITR 169. The discussion in both the years is verbatim same except variation in the amounts. Therefore, for the facility of reference, we take note of his finding in A.Y. 2013-14. From paragraph no. 3.2 prior to that, he just narrated the details of commission recipients, i.e. three companies and three individuals:- “3.2. The accounts of the assessee com…

Ankit Impex Marketing Services (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward--8(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 619/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 68

Geeta Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 396/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…to be paid by 15/03/2012. Given these facts, it is evident that the AO had sufficient grounds to form the belief that the appellant’s income had escaped assessment and therefore he issued the notice u/s 148. In the case of Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had laid down the principle that the prima facia belief of the AO that the income had escaped assessment is enough at the stage of reopening and merits of the matter are not relevant. In the light of the above facts, the AO’s action in reopening the appellant’s assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13 is found to be i…

A.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sarada Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1867/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…attend the proceedings, and file necessary clarification on the queries raised.’’ 7. In the decision of the Delhi High Court in C.I.T. vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. 264 CTR 0258 which has relied on its own decision in C.I.T. vs. Nova Promoters Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169, it has been adverted on the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. In the case of Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. reported in 263 ITR 0289 (Cal), the three principles have been articulated, even though the last mentioned was not a closely held company. 8. It is observed during the time of hearing before…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Priceless Overseas Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6320/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ness then one cannot say that genuineness of the transaction is established. 6.3 The ld. DR also referred to the judgment delivered by the I.T.A. No.6320/Del/2016 9 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd., (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del) and NR Portfolio (supra) and submitted that the principles laid down in such judgments and other host of judgment referred in the assessment order would squarely apply to the present case. The ld. DR thus submitted that the CIT(A) has ignored the surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of probabilities overwhelming in suc…

Shankar Lal Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. P. Sumitha, DR

Section 10(38)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 150/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Shankar Lal Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. Ward-16(2), [PAN: ADWPA8925H] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Ms. P. Sumitha, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 23/11/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 29/11/2023 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 20/10/2017…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7309/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraastt. Year: 2011-12 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd. Central Circle-13, 205, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Samarpan, Chakala Link Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Maharashtra. Pan Aabcl3501H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

…e would like to discuss the judgments so relied by learned CIT DR. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379, CIT vs Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 412 ITR 161. We have gone through all the aforesaid cases and rather have found that the said judgments support the case of assessee companies, as the main proposition which has been laid down in all the aforesaid judgments is that “Assessing Officer ought to c…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68