What is Delhi Flour Mills v. CIT authority for?

A provision for interest that is an ascertained liability, quantified with reasonable certainty, is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act.

How many judgments cite Delhi Flour Mills v. CIT?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite Delhi Flour Mills v. CIT (95 ITR 151), spanning 2008 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 35ABB, Section 37(1), Section 14A, Section 244A, Section 36(1)(vii).

Delhi Flour Mills v. CIT (95 ITR 151)

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…nting year, a deduction should be allowed if the liability could be reasonably estimated though actually discharged at a later date. Also, the Delhi I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 High Court in the case of Delhi Flour Mills vs. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 151 (Delhi), while allowing the provision for gratuity, observed as under: “The gratuity payable to an employee represented a part of the emoluments payable to him for rendering service during each year. The right to receive gratuity accrued to the employee as soon as he completed one year of service and, as a corollary, the liability to pay the gratu…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…nting year, a deduction should be allowed if the liability could be reasonably estimated though actually discharged at a later date. Also, the Delhi I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 High Court in the case of Delhi Flour Mills vs. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 151 (Delhi), while allowing the provision for gratuity, observed as under: “The gratuity payable to an employee represented a part of the emoluments payable to him for rendering service during each year. The right to receive gratuity accrued to the employee as soon as he completed one year of service and, as a corollary, the liability to pay the gratu…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…r India Pvt Ltd: 312 ITR 254 (SC) (i) CIT vs U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation: 225 ITR 703 (SC) (j) CIT vs Burhwal Sugar Mills Co Ltd: 82 ITR 784 (All) (k) Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd vs CIT: 92 ITR 503 (All) (l) Delhi Flour Mills Co Ltd vs CIT: 95 ITR 151 (Del) (m) CIT vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd: 114 ITR 684 (All) (n) Eddy Current Controls (India) Ltd vs CIT: 198 ITR 491 (Ker) 50. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that, in the present case, the assessee had an obligation to pay interest, arising as a result of contract entered into with MIB; the liability to pay interest has crystallize…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…r India Pvt Ltd: 312 ITR 254 (SC) (i) CIT vs U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation: 225 ITR 703 (SC) (j) CIT vs Burhwal Sugar Mills Co Ltd: 82 ITR 784 (All) (k) Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd vs CIT: 92 ITR 503 (All) (l) Delhi Flour Mills Co Ltd vs CIT: 95 ITR 151 (Del) (m) CIT vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd: 114 ITR 684 (All) (n) Eddy Current Controls (India) Ltd vs CIT: 198 ITR 491 (Ker) 50. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that, in the present case, the assessee had an obligation to pay interest, arising as a result of contract entered into with MIB; the liability to pay interest has crystallize…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4960/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…r India Pvt Ltd: 312 ITR 254 (SC) (i) CIT vs U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation: 225 ITR 703 (SC) (j) CIT vs Burhwal Sugar Mills Co Ltd: 82 ITR 784 (All) (k) Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd vs CIT: 92 ITR 503 (All) (l) Delhi Flour Mills Co Ltd vs CIT: 95 ITR 151 (Del) (m) CIT vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd: 114 ITR 684 (All) (n) Eddy Current Controls (India) Ltd vs CIT: 198 ITR 491 (Ker) 50. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that, in the present case, the assessee had an obligation to pay interest, arising as a result of contract entered into with MIB; the liability to pay interest has crystallize…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4868/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…r India Pvt Ltd: 312 ITR 254 (SC) (i) CIT vs U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation: 225 ITR 703 (SC) (j) CIT vs Burhwal Sugar Mills Co Ltd: 82 ITR 784 (All) (k) Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd vs CIT: 92 ITR 503 (All) (l) Delhi Flour Mills Co Ltd vs CIT: 95 ITR 151 (Del) (m) CIT vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd: 114 ITR 684 (All) (n) Eddy Current Controls (India) Ltd vs CIT: 198 ITR 491 (Ker) 50. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that, in the present case, the assessee had an obligation to pay interest, arising as a result of contract entered into with MIB; the liability to pay interest has crystallize…

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…late authorities: (148 ITR 149) (Cal); (205 ITR 589) (AP); (147 ITR 332) (Mad); (12 ITR 385) (La); (16 ITR 325) (P); (16 ITR 433 ) (Mag); (17 ITR 426) (Cal); (23 ITR 87) ( SC); (45 ITR 107); Economic Explosives Ltd. ITA no.177/Nag./2022 ITA no.242/Nag./2023 (95 ITR 151) (Del); (102 ITR 622) (Mad); (136 ITR 645) (Del); (143 ITR 29) (Ker); (163 ITR 659) (Karn.); (179 ITR 283) (P&H); and (230 ITR 622) (Karn.). In the following decisions courts have held that circulars are binding on the Revenue: Uco Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (237 ITR 889)(SC); Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and Dhiren Che…

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…late authorities: (148 ITR 149) (Cal); (205 ITR 589) (AP); (147 ITR 332) (Mad); (12 ITR 385) (La); (16 ITR 325) (P); (16 ITR 433 ) (Mag); (17 ITR 426) (Cal); (23 ITR 87) ( SC); (45 ITR 107); Economic Explosives Ltd. ITA no.177/Nag./2022 ITA no.242/Nag./2023 (95 ITR 151) (Del); (102 ITR 622) (Mad); (136 ITR 645) (Del); (143 ITR 29) (Ker); (163 ITR 659) (Karn.); (179 ITR 283) (P&H); and (230 ITR 622) (Karn.). In the following decisions courts have held that circulars are binding on the Revenue: Uco Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (237 ITR 889)(SC); Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and Dhiren Che…

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

…t given. However, after hearing learned counsel, we see no valid ground to allow this application. The same is, therefore, rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Shri R. C. Mukati, relying upon the decisions in Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 151 (Delhi) (sic), Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 473 (Bom), Ludhiana Central Co-operative Consumers' Stores Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 942 (P & H), Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542 (SC) and Sinclair Murray and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 615 (SC), contended that this subsidy amounts to a revenue r…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…usiness liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, a deduction should be allowed if the liability could be reasonably estimated though actually discharged at a later date. Also, the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Flour Mills Vs. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 151 (Delhi), while allowing the provision for gratuity, observed as under: “The gratuity payable to an employee represented a part of the emoluments payable to him for rendering service during each year. The right to receive gratuity accrued to the employee as soon as he completed one year of service and, as a corollary, the liability to pay the gratu…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…usiness liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, a deduction should be allowed if the liability could be reasonably estimated though actually discharged at a later date. Also, the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Flour Mills Vs. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 151 (Delhi), while allowing the provision for gratuity, observed as under: “The gratuity payable to an employee represented a part of the emoluments payable to him for rendering service during each year. The right to receive gratuity accrued to the employee as soon as he completed one year of service and, as a corollary, the liability to pay the gratu…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

ITA 119/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sharath Rao, A.R

Section 40

…regard to speculative / hedging transactions we had benefit of perusing the judgments of M.G.Bros. v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 695/20 Taxman 90 (AP), Nuddea Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 169/[1987] 35 Taxman 3 (Cal.), Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v CIT [1974] 95 ITR 151 (Delhi) and Pankaj Oil Mills v CIT [1978] 115 ITR 824 (Guj.) delivered by the Hon'ble High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, Delhi and Gujarat respectively." 4.5.11 As discussed earlier, in the case on hand, there has been an existing contract with a binding obligation accrued against the assessee when it entered into forex forward contracts. T…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&

Section 143(3)Section 147

…usiness liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, a deduction should be allowed if the liability could be reasonably estimated though actually discharged at a later date. Also, the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Flour Mills Vs. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 151 (Delhi), while allowing the provision for gratuity, observed as under: “The gratuity payable to an employee represented a part of the emoluments payable 24 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 to him for rendering service during each year. The right to receive gratuity accrued to the employee as soon as he completed one year…

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.SUD CHEMIE INDIA P. LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 41/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

…transactions we had benefit of perusing the judgments I.T.A. Nos./ 3, 17 & 41/C/2017 of M.G. Bros. V CIT (1985) 1564 ITR 695/20 Taxman 90 (AP), Nuddea Mills Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 169 (1987) 35 Taxman 3 (Cal), Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. V CIT (1974) 95 ITR 151 (Del) and Pankaj Oil Mills V CIT (1978) 115 ITR 824 (Guj) delivered by the Hon'ble High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, Delhi and Gujarat respectively." 4.5.11 As discussed earlier, in the case on hand there has been an existing contract with a binding obligation accrued against the assessee when it entered into for-ex forward contracts. The f…

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.SUD CHEMIE INDIA P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

…transactions we had benefit of perusing the judgments I.T.A. Nos./ 3, 17 & 41/C/2017 of M.G. Bros. V CIT (1985) 1564 ITR 695/20 Taxman 90 (AP), Nuddea Mills Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 169 (1987) 35 Taxman 3 (Cal), Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. V CIT (1974) 95 ITR 151 (Del) and Pankaj Oil Mills V CIT (1978) 115 ITR 824 (Guj) delivered by the Hon'ble High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, Delhi and Gujarat respectively." 4.5.11 As discussed earlier, in the case on hand there has been an existing contract with a binding obligation accrued against the assessee when it entered into for-ex forward contracts. The f…

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1359/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1359/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) The Deputy Commissioner Of London Star Diamond बनाम/ Income Tax 5(2) Company (India) Private V. Room No. 571, Aayakar Limited Bhawan, M K Road, Mumbai- 1610/1611 , 400 020 Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl0576B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1359/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) The Deputy Commissioner of London Star Diamond बनाम/ Income Tax 5(2) Company (India) Private v. Room No. 571, Aayakar Limited Bhawan, M K Road, Mumbai- 1610/1611 , 400 020 Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACL0576B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by Sh. Vikash Kumar Agarwal Assessee by : Shri Harsh K…

TAURIAN IRON & STEEL CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5920/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.B.DesaiFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…6 ITR 325) (Privy council). (vi). Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh Vs. CIT (16 ITR 433)(Nag). (vii). Comm. Of Agri. Income tax Vs.Raja Jagdish Chandra Dhabal (171TR 426)(Cal). (viii). S.D Sharma Vs. CIT (45 ITR 107 )(Mah). (ix). Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (95 ITR 151)(Del). (x). A.L.A Firm Vs. CIT (102 ITR 622)(Mad). (xi). Addl. CIT Vs. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh (136 ITR 645)(Del). (xii).CIT Vs. Malayala Manorma and Co. Ltd. (143 ITR 29)(Kar). (xiii).Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (163 ITR 659) (xiv). CIT Vs. Precision Steel and Engg. Works (179 ITR 283)(P&H). (xv). East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. C.R Shekhar Reddy…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 943 / 2007HC Delhi31 Mar 2008

…he Supreme Court), if properly ascertainable, is deductible from 3 (1) (a) ![](_page_11_Picture_1.jpeg) the gross receipts while preparing the profit and loss account. **'**• (1) · 26. In Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1974] 95 ITR 151, the Supreme Court applied the principle enunciated in Metal Box and held as follows:- "In other words, the gratuity payable to an employee represents a part of the emoluments payable to him for rendering service during each year. The right to receive gratuity accrues to the employee as soon as he completes one year of service and, as a corollary…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 934 / 2007HC Delhi31 Mar 2008

…e that was before the Supreme Court), if properly ascertainable, is deductible from **Æ**, ![](_page_11_Picture_1.jpeg) the gross receipts while preparing the profit and loss account. 26. In Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1974] 95 ITR 151, the Supreme Court applied the principle enunciated in Metal Box and held as follows:- "In other words, the gratuity payable to an employee represents a part of the emoluments payable to him for rendering service during each year. The right to receive gratuity accrues to the employee as soon as he completes one year of service and, as a corollary…

Delhi Flour Mills v. CIT

What is Delhi Flour Mills v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Delhi Flour Mills v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.SUD CHEMIE INDIA P. LTD, COCHIN

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.SUD CHEMIE INDIA P. LTD, ALUVA

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

TAURIAN IRON & STEEL CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) LTD

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) LTD