How many judgments cite ITO v. Surana Traders?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite ITO v. Surana Traders (92 ITD 212), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITO v. Surana Traders come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 69A, Section 132, Section 144B.

ITO v. Surana Traders

92 ITD 212Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#4312 most cited

What is ITO v. Surana Traders authority for?

Additions cannot be made under Section 68 solely because purchasers were not traceable if the assessee provides necessary sales details, maintains complete books of accounts, and a stock register, especially when payments are made through banking channels. The onus is on the revenue to prove the incorrectness or incompleteness of accounts or the accounting method.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Surana Traders · Section 68 · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · cash credits · unexplained money · onus of proof · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source · rejection of books of account · hawala transaction · genuine purchases · banking channel

Also reported as

93 TTJ 875

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 132 Section 144B Section 147 Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 69d first proviso to section 147 creditworthiness of the creditor colourable device source of source addition under section 68 section 44ab section 44a addition u/s 68 rejection of books of account section 44 section 145(3)

Judgments citing ITO v. Surana Traders

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 682/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…or cash received against which goods is supplied\nsubsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68 of the Act.\nReliance is further placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in\nthe case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212,\nthe relevant observation of the Mumbai Bench are as under:\n\"So merely because for the reasons that the purchaser parties were not traceable, the\nassessee could not be penalized. In the sales documents, the assessee has made available\nall necessary details, i.e. the total weight sold as well as the rate per kilogram.\nUndisputedly, the assess…

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 624/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…held to be genuine, the corresponding sales by any stretch of imagination could not be termed to be a Hawala transaction. For the aforesaid proposition, the ITAT placed reliance on the judgment of the Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Surana Traders (2005) 93 TTJ 875. 4. The ld. CIT(A) noted these arguments and held them to be technically correct because the provisions under section 145(3) had not been specifically invoked in the assessment order. Therefore, only the profit on turnover could be assessed as the amounts spent on genuine purchases had to be allowed. He looked at the additions made by the AO under…

ASSTT. COMMISIONER, MUMBAI vs. SUPREME LAKE VIEW BUNGALOWS PRIVATE LIMITED, POWAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5735/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ed financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed on AO’s record. Without doing so, the addition made by AO was based on conjectures and surmises could not be justified. Thus, no addition was warranted under Section 68. ITO V/s Surana Trading 92 ITD 212 (Mum)(para 98)(ITA No.2826/Mum/2013) held that no addition could be made merely on assumptions or presumptions or surmises or conjectures. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sent. Sita Devi Juneja (2010) 325 ITR593 (P& H): held that it is settled law that, no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures.” Accordingly, on the…

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

…nt\nonce again under section 68 of the Act\nwould tantamount to double taxation of\nthe same income. 7. In view of the above\nsituation, we do not find any reason to\ninterfere with the Tribunal's order\n20.\nITO vs. Surana Traders,\n(2005)93 TTJ 875:\n(2005)92 ITD 212 Hon'ble\nMumbai ITAT\nHeld that " So merely because for the\nreasons that the purchaser parties were\nnot traceable, the assessee could not be\npenalized. In the sales documents, the\nassessee has made available all\nnecessary details, i.e. the total weight\nsold as well as the rate per kilogram.\nUndisputedly, the assessee has\nmaintained complet…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, DELHI, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. SANJAY SALES AGENCY, FATEHPURI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 963/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 DCIT Vs. Sanjay Sales Agency IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [DELHI BENCH:“ G” New Delhi] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 963/Del/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) DCIT Vs Sanjay Sales Agency, E-2, ARA, Central, 58, Ekta Market, Katra Jhandewalan Extension, Baryan, Fatehpur, Delhi New Delhi PAN: ABDFS3566K Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Amit Goel, Advocate and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue by Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/11/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appea…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KLT AUTOMOTIVE AND TUBULAR PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 822/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

…y the AO is too high. The appellant further submitted that no addition could be made on the basis on surmises and conjecture. For this the appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC), ITO V/s Surana Trading 92 ITD 212 (Mum)(para 98)(ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013) , Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sent. Sita Devi Juneja (2010) 325 ITR 593 (P&H), The Jaipur ITAT in the case of Vivek Agarwal [ITA No. 292/JP/2017], The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v Sriram Investments [2017} 77 taxmann.com 113 (Mad). The appellant also submitted that commission to the extent…

GAZALA HASSAN CHARIYARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed

ITA 5350/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Ito Ward– 8(1)(1) Vs. Stall No. 9A, Dadani Rizwan Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan, 124, M E S Marg, Zanda Galli Off, Maharshi Karve Road, Memonwada Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mubmai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aaepc3430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

…C),  Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PAT.),  Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj.),  CIT vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujrat High Court) Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009,  ITO vs. Surana Traders (2005) 93 TTJ 875: (2005) 92 ITD 212 Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT,  Smt. Teena Bethala Vs ITO (ITA No. 1383/Bang/2019) dated 28.08.2019,  DCIT vs. M/s Karthik Construction Co. ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016,  Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All),  ITO vs. Vishan Lal (ITA No. 634/Lkw/2014) 5 Gazala Hasan Chariyari (AY 2017-18) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue support…

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…is not proper. When the assessee had regular cash sale and deposit of ash in the bank accounts and if nothing incriminating is found contrary then the addition u/s 68 of such cash sale would tantamount to double taxation. (vii) Surana Traders VS ITO [(2005) 93 TTJ 875] Held: No mistake was pointed out by the AO in the stock register and quantitative tally furnished by the assessee and genuineness of the transactions was verified from the books of account, i.e., bank books and ledger and when, in such cases, quantitative tally was furnished, even if purchasers were not available, no addition was called for. Mere…

NEERAJ JAIN, DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1591/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 3Section 69A

…ed the purchases and 8 stocks, there is no justification for him to draw adverse inference in respect of sales. A reference in this regard was made to the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Paradise Holiday, (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Del); ITO vs. Surana Traders (2005) 92 ITD 212 (ITAT Mum); Shree Sanad Textile Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.1166/Ahd/2014 (ITAT Ahd). The ld. counsel thus submitted that impugned addition is devoid of any rational basis both on facts and on law. 11. Without prejudice and in the alternative, the ld. counsel submitted that the action of the AO has resulted in double addition to the extent o…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(6), SURAT vs. RAJAL RAJENDRAABHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 36/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Rajal Rajendrabhai Patel 3(2)(6), Surat, Room No.109, 1St Shop No.3, Labhunagar, Aai Vs. Floor, Anvil Building, Income Mata Road, Magob Dumbal, Tax Officer, Surat-395009 Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awmpp 3195 K (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.36/SRT/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Rajal Rajendrabhai Patel 3(2)(6), Surat, Room No.109, 1st Shop No.3, Labhunagar, Aai Vs. Floor, Anvil Building, Income Mata Road, Magob Dumbal, Tax Officer, Surat-395009 Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AWMPP 3195 K (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR…

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

ITA 212/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…(2014) 220 Taxman 17 (Mag) (Guj) - Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT, (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.)(Trib) - CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises (P)Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Bom) - G. G. Disamond International v. Dy. CIT, 104 TTJ 809 (Mum)(Trib) - ITO v. Surana Traders, (2005) 92 ITD 212 (Mum)(Trib.) - Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd. V. ITO, (1994) 49 ITD 177 (Mum) Without prejudice to above total disallowance of salary and taxing Gross revenue is not justified. Attention is invited to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT, (2005) 279 ITR 434 (S.C.) where it is held that it is a settled pr…

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…vances or cash received against which goods is supplied subsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68. h. Reliance can further be placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212, the relevant observation of the Mumbai Bench were as under: "So merely because for the reasons that the purchaser parties were not traceable, the assessee could not be penalized. In the sales documents, the assessee has made available all necessary details, i.e. the total weight sold as well as the rate per kilogram. Undisputedly, the assessee ha…

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHADDA INTERNATIONAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 6692/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…in the stock register, maintained by the assessee and as when sales were made against these purchases, the quantity so sold has also been entered in the stock register. In this connection, your kind attention is drawn to the case ITO Vs. Surana Traders (2005) 92 ITD 212 (Mum.)(Trib.), where the Hon’ble Tribunal has held that" Where a quantitative tally of sales, are furnished, even if the purchases are not available, no addition can be made, merely on assumptions or presumption" # Once the sales are accepted by the department, merely on the assumption, based on the statement given by a third party during Investi…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHADDA INTERNATIONAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 6691/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

M/S DHADDA INTERNATIONAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 6409/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

M/S DHADDA INTERNATIONAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 6408/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Circle-7, New Delhi v/s Karam Chand Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 23-27) g) DCIT 25 (3) , 308, C-11, Mumbai Versus Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil- 2014 (8) TMI 807 - ITAT MUMBAI(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 28-31) h) ITO vs. Surana Traders 93 TTJ 875 (Mum.)(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 32-43) i) ITO vs. Super Chemicals Distributors (2005) 1 SOT 102 (Del.) Held(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 44- 47)- j) CIT v/s. Winstral Petrochemicals (P) Ltd. (2010) 41 DTR (Del)139 (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 48- 52) k) CIT v/s. Samir Bio-tech (P) Ltd. (2009) 17 DTR (Del) 224. (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 53…

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,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, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 122/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing DCIT, Company, Vs. Central Circle-3, Jaipur. F-381, 382, Road No. 9F, VKI Area, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCK 0316 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 244/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessme…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2