What is Govind Das v. ITO authority for?

Taxing provisions imposing new liabilities or affecting substantive rights are presumed to operate prospectively unless the statute expressly or necessarily implies retrospective application. Retrospective operation is generally not given if it impairs existing rights, creates new obligations, or imposes new liabilities, except for procedural matters.

How many judgments cite Govind Das v. ITO?

83 judgments on BharatTax cite Govind Das v. ITO (103 ITR 123), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Govind Das v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1894, Section 1961, Section 10(37), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 45(5).

Govind Das v. ITO (103 ITR 123)

Thachanattukara Farmers Producers Company, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 1, Palakkad

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

ITA 995/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

…. 143(1)(a). 4. Before us, while the assessee relied on the orders by the Tribunal in The SardDogri Coop. Agri Services Society Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 716/Chd/2022, dated 05/6/2023), as indeed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Govind Das &Ors. v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 (SC) and CIT v. B.C. SrinivasaSetty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC), the Revenue would on the orders by the Tribunal in Muhamma Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. ITO (in ITA No. 264/Coch/2021, dated 19/12/2022) and Thannermukkom Co-op. Society Ltd. v. ITO (in ITA Nos. 652 & 653/Coch/2022, dated 13/12/2022), besides the decisions by the Apex Court in CC(I) v. Di…

Mr Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Indore

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 71/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 271A

…(i) ITAT, Indore in DCIT Vs. M/s Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 677/Ind/2019 order dated 08.10.2021 and (ii) ITAT, Jabalpur ACIT Vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain, ITA No. 41/JAB/2020 order dated 31.10.2022. Further reliance is also placed on Govind das Vs. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC), CIT Vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) and Piu Ghosh Vs. DCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 226 (Calcutta HC) to support the proposition that any amendment made in statute shall apply prospectively and not retrospectively. At that juncture, the Bench questioned Ld. AR on the later and recent decision of ITAT, Indore in Nare…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Worship Infraprojects Pvt Ltd(Previously Known As Om Metals Spml Infraprojects Pvt Ltd), Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &

Section 92C

…t. Ltd Vs ACIT Mehsana ITA No 2262/Ahd/2018 order dated 31-01- 2022 reported in 2022 (1) TMI 411 ITAT Ahmedabad. (Case law paper book page 99-104) 1.1 Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's ground on this issue by relying the decision of Govinddas Vs ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 and CIT Vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 249/227 Taxman 121. In this regard we submit that both the decisions are not relevant to the issue in hand. The present issue is omission of law without saving clause for pending proceedings. In CIT vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd the issue was retrospective applicability of S. 113 Proviso inse…

Worship Infraprojects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Ceircle-2, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &

Section 92C

…t. Ltd Vs ACIT Mehsana ITA No 2262/Ahd/2018 order dated 31-01- 2022 reported in 2022 (1) TMI 411 ITAT Ahmedabad. (Case law paper book page 99-104) 1.1 Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's ground on this issue by relying the decision of Govinddas Vs ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 and CIT Vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 249/227 Taxman 121. In this regard we submit that both the decisions are not relevant to the issue in hand. The present issue is omission of law without saving clause for pending proceedings. In CIT vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd the issue was retrospective applicability of S. 113 Proviso inse…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suryakant C Suchak, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 965/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसुं. 965/भ ुं/2020 (यन.ि.1999-2000) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(4),Mumbai, Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ...... अऩीराथी/Appellant फनाभ Vs. Shri Suryakant C. Suchak, 231, Krishna, 32-A Cross, 7Th Block, Jaynagar, Bangalore – 560 070. ..... प्रयििादी/Respondent Pan:Apjps-8359-A अऩीराथी द्िाया/ Appellant By : Smt. Esther Ninghauvung Hanghal प्रयििादी द्िाया/Respondent By : Shri Dilip Thakkar स निाई की यिधथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणा की यिधथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai *In Short ‘The Cit(A)’+ Dated 26/11/2019, For Assessment Year 1999-2000. 2 2. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Smt. Esther Ninghauvung HanghalFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Thakkar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(c)Section 69

…is one of validation of taxing statute struck-down by courts for certain defects; the period of such retroactivity, and the decree and extent of any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period etc." 18. In Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 the Supreme Court held that Section 171 (6) of the Income Tax Act was prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Act came into force and observed that: 7 "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a…

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…Township (P) Ltd (Supra). Accordingly, the amended 23 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur provision of Section 115 BBE should apply on incomes accruing after the law having received assent of the President. 4.33. In the case of Govind Das (1976) 1 SCC 906 (SC), following observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1-4-1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force:- “…11. Now it is a well-settled Rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial de…

Sandeep Sethi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 155/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 115BSection 132(1)

…d by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vatika Township (P) Ltd (Supra). Accordingly, the amended provision of Section 115 BBE should apply on incomes accruing after the law having received assent of the President. C.9. In the case of Govind Das(1976) 1 SCC 906 (SC), following observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1-4-1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force:- “…11. Now it is a well-settled Rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial de…

Rajiv Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 154/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 115BSection 132(1)

…d by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vatika Township (P) Ltd (Supra). Accordingly, the amended provision of Section 115 BBE should apply on incomes accruing after the law having received assent of the President. C.9. In the case of Govind Das(1976) 1 SCC 906 (SC), following observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1-4-1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force:- “…11. Now it is a well-settled Rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial de…

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…." • CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. [200] 243 ITR 48/109 Taxman 342 (SC). It has been held by Honourable Supreme Court that "Retrospective Amendment of law could not compel the assessee to deposit tax on additional income." • Govind Das v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 (SC). It has been held by Honourable Supreme Court that "Now, it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right…

DCIT Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Karamjit Jaiswal (L/H of Ladli Pershad Jaiswal), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4826/DEL/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

…is one of validation of taxing statute struck-down by courts for certain defects; the period of such retroactivity, and the decree and extent of any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period etc." 18. In Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 the Supreme Court held that Section 171 (6) of the Income Tax Act was prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Act came into force and observed that: "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a sta…

DCIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi vs. Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4824/DEL/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

…is one of validation of taxing statute struck-down by courts for certain defects; the period of such retroactivity, and the decree and extent of any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period etc." 18. In Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 the Supreme Court held that Section 171 (6) of the Income Tax Act was prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Act came into force and observed that: "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a sta…

New Skies Satellites B. V, Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 436/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

…the then existing law." 35. This presumption against retrospectivity stems from an indispensible need for each rule of law to answer to the principle of fairness. L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Company (2015) 1 SCC 1 [1976] 1 SCC 906 [1962] 1 SCR ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 26 Ltd.29. This presumption can be displaced in either of two situations, (i) where the words of the amendment specifically indicate the retroactivity of the law or (ii) in the case of declaratory or clarificatory amendments. Clarificatory amendments are a special class of amendments the…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 966/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)(c)

…uinely be sanguine and had no obligation of the kind which the Revenue seeks to impose by the present amendment. All the more significant is the fact that absent a clear indication, every statute is presumed to be prospective”; (b) “In Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 the Supreme Court held that Section 171 (6) of the Income Tax Act was prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Act came into force and observed that…..Now it is a well-settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/214/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021

For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ITA 213-215/2020 Page 1 of 33 $-J-5, 6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement reserved on: 09.04.2021 Judgement pronounced on: 05.07.2021 + ITA 213/2020 + ITA 214/2020 + ITA 215/2020 COFORGE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Advocates. versus ACIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shailender Singh, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH RAJIV SHAKDHER, J: Table of Contents Background…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/215/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021

For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ITA 213-215/2020 Page 1 of 33 $-J-5, 6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement reserved on: 09.04.2021 Judgement pronounced on: 05.07.2021 + ITA 213/2020 + ITA 214/2020 + ITA 215/2020 COFORGE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Advocates. versus ACIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shailender Singh, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH RAJIV SHAKDHER, J: Table of Contents Background…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/213/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021

For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ITA 213-215/2020 Page 1 of 33 $-J-5, 6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement reserved on: 09.04.2021 Judgement pronounced on: 05.07.2021 + ITA 213/2020 + ITA 214/2020 + ITA 215/2020 COFORGE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Advocates. versus ACIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shailender Singh, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH RAJIV SHAKDHER, J: Table of Contents Background…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri. Hosagrahar

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/601/2019HC Karnataka05 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 54F

…in India in order to claim exemption under Section 54F(1) of the Act has been incorporated w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 7. Before proceeding further, we may advert to certain well settled legal principles. The Supreme Court in 'GOVIND DAS vs. I.T.O', (1976) 1 SCC 906 held that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury…

Geetha Pandit Rao and Anr vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/226494/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…) SCC 191, thus: “35. Mr Sachar relies on Thakur Gokulchand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury, AIR 1957 SC 540, Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim, (1976) 2 SCC 917, Govind Das v. ITO, (1976) 1 SCC 906, Henshall v. Porter, (1923) 2 KBD 193, United Provinces v. Mst. Atiga Begum, AIR 1941 FC 16, in support of his submission that the Amendment Act was not made retrospective by the legislature either expressly or by necessary implication as the Act itself expressly provided that it shall be deemed to have come into force on January 23, 1973; a…

Smt Geetha Pandit Rao vs. The Government of Karnataka

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/7717/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…) SCC 191, thus: “35. Mr Sachar relies on Thakur Gokulchand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury, AIR 1957 SC 540, Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim, (1976) 2 SCC 917, Govind Das v. ITO, (1976) 1 SCC 906, Henshall v. Porter, (1923) 2 KBD 193, United Provinces v. Mst. Atiga Begum, AIR 1941 FC 16, in support of his submission that the Amendment Act was not made retrospective by the legislature either expressly or by necessary implication as the Act itself expressly provided that it shall be deemed to have come into force on January 23, 1973; a…

Commissioner of vs. Mr Vinay Mishra

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

ITA/75/2013HC Karnataka31 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

…use in India in order to claim exemption under Section 54F(1) of the Act has been incorporated w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 7. Before proceeding further, we may advert to certain well settled legal principles. The Supreme Court in ‘GOVIND DAS vs. I.T.O’, (1976) 1 SCC 906 held that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new 10 liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury…

Govind Das v. ITO

What is Govind Das v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Govind Das v. ITO

Thachanattukara Farmers Producers Company, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 1, Palakkad

Mr Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT Central Circle -2, Indore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Worship Infraprojects Pvt Ltd(Previously Known As Om Metals Spml Infraprojects Pvt Ltd), Jaipur

Worship Infraprojects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Ceircle-2, Jaipur

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suryakant C Suchak, Bangalore

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

Sandeep Sethi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Rajiv Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

DCIT Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Karamjit Jaiswal (L/H of Ladli Pershad Jaiswal), New Delhi

DCIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi vs. Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi

New Skies Satellites B. V, Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri. Hosagrahar

Geetha Pandit Rao and Anr vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors

Smt Geetha Pandit Rao vs. The Government of Karnataka

Commissioner of vs. Mr Vinay Mishra