MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

Q: How many judgments cite MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32?

533 judgments on BharatTax cite MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32 (9 SCC 1), spanning 2006 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32 come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 144, Section 37(1), Section 133(6), Section 201.

9 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2018#119 most cited

What is MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32 authority for?

Fiscal statutes mandate strict compliance with regulatory requirements, especially for claiming benefits or exemption clauses. The doctrine of substantial compliance applies only when mandatory requirements are fully met, even if some directory requirements are not.

533

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Malpe Vishwanath Acharya · Dilip Kumar · strict compliance fiscal statute · exemption clause interpretation · doctrine of substantial compliance · regulatory requirements income tax · Section 2(31) interpretation · Section 139(1) compliance · fiscal law strict interpretation · income tax benefits conditions

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 144 Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 201 Section 201(1A)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 264a section 44aa section 264 section 192 section 17 section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)assessee in default section 201(1)section 251 section 201 section 44ab

Judgments citing MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

SUPERTECH EV LIMITED,JHAJJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, ROHTAK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6603/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2024-25 Supertech Ev Limited Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Plot No.150 Sector 16 Exemptions Ward Rohtak Phase 1 Bahadurgarh Jhajjar Haryana-124507 Pan No.Abjcs1671E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2024-25 Supertech EV Limited Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/ ITO Plot No.150 Sector 16 Exemptions Ward Rohtak Phase 1 Bahadurgarh Jhajjar Haryana-124507 PAN No.ABJCS1671E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Saurav Rohtagi, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 24/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 11/03/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commis…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD , NAVRANGPURA H.O AHMADABAD CITY

ITA 715/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…principle that exemptions and deductions are to be strictly interpreted, and there is no scope for granting multiple "initial assessment years for the same unit under Section 801C, as reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1). (e) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal.” 5. While the assessee had filed cross objection challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the legal ground raised by it. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us in its Cross Objection: “1. On the fact…

FDCM KARMACHARI SAHAKA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 313/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Lakkadsha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ase specifically dealing with filing of a sec.139(1) return, sub-clause(ii) could not be pressed in action being in the nature of a general provision only. I adopt principles of stricter interpretation as per Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to conclude that both the learned lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s sec.80P deduction(s) claim(s) by way of sec.143(1)(a)(ii) or 143(1)(a)(v) “processing” has to be reversed. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.” 7. In the light of above findings of this Tribunal, I find that the same…

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…o not a case that the view taken by him is unsustainable in law & therefore the same could not have been interfered with. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (import) v. Dilip Kumar & Co [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327 / [2018] 9 SCC 1 held M/s. Sri Ramaseva BahusaraKshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd., Shimoga Page 24 of 28 that if there are two views possible in the matter of interpretation of a charging section, the one favourable to the assessee needs to be applied. Applying the aforesaid ratio in the present fact of the case, we find no fault with the AO in taking the plausible view o…

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…o not a case that the view taken by him is unsustainable in law & therefore the same could not have been interfered with. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (import) v. Dilip Kumar & Co [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327 / [2018] 9 SCC 1 held that if there are two views possible in the Bharath Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru Page 25 of 30 matter of interpretation of a charging section, the one favourable to the assessee needs to be applied. Applying the aforesaid ratio in the present fact of the case, we find no fault with the AO in taking the plausible view of treatin…

DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. A.P. SECURITAS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is allowed and appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3077/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-Dda, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1315R

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80J

…uantum, the conditions prescribed by the statute for availing such benefits are to be strictly complied with.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC) and reiterated in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench) has held that in matters of exemption and incentive provisions, the conditions prescribed therein are to be strictly construed and the burden lies upon the assessee to establish compliance.  In the present case, the condition u/s 80AC(ii) is explicit, substantive and mandatory. Failure to file return within Section 139(1) exting…

ADVAYA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (NOW BTG ADVAYA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION),MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6809/MUM/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 12ASection 8

…1 Taxman 270/299 CTR 463 (Bom) (HC),delay of 2984 days in filing an appeal before the Tribunal was condoned.It is also stated that the decision in PCIT v. Wipro Ltd (2022) 140 Taxmann.com 223 /446 ITR I (SC) & Commissioner of Customs v Dilip Kumar & Co (2018) 9 SCC 1 are not applicable to the facts of the appellant as the provisions of Section 12A(ac) empowers the CIT(E) to condone the delay.Further, said decisions deal with interpretation of exemption provisions and not applicable to facts of the assessee case. 4.6 Alternatively,vide additional ground of appeal,it is submitted that while applying for provisiona…

AMRUT PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7387/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramrut Public Charitable Ito Exemption Trust Ward 1(1), Block 4, Plot No. 578A, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Jitendra Bldg, Pedder Road, Jamejamshed Road, Mumbai-400 026 Matunga, Mumbai- 400 019 Pan/Gir No.Aaata4810A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. P. Jayaraman, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2026

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

…e is a statutory and substantive requirement and not a mere procedural formality. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1, to hold that exemption provisions require strict compliance and that delay cannot be condoned in absence of statutory enabling provision. 4 Amrut Public Charitable Trust On these grounds, the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB was held to be non-maintainable and was rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(E), the a…

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

…rue or be realised in diverse circumstances, even in the absence of a conventional sale, transfer, or exchange in the strict legal sense. To confine the operation of Section 28 to such modes would unduly 19 AIR 1958 SC 861 20 (1989) 3 SCC 488 21 (2018) 9 SCC 1 (5-Judge Bench) 30 restrict a provision that Parliament has intentionally couched in broad terms. Illustratively, waiver of a trading liability has been treated as taxable business income under Section 28, as held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.22 Again, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meghalaya Steels Lt…

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

…O have accepted the deduction under section 80-IA for the same undertaking after detailed examination. Thus, the eligibility of the unit for deduction is not under doubt. The reliance of the revenue on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar (9 SCC 1) is misplaced. The present issue is not one of strict versus liberal construction of a deduction provision; rather, the issue is whether a claim duly made in the return through computation notes and supported by audit report is a valid claim in law. Once the revenue has itself accepted the claim in subsequent years, the principle of consistency, as l…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

…ave accepted the deduction under Section 80-IA for the same undertaking after\ndetailed examination. Thus, the eligibility of the unit for deduction is not under\ndoubt. The reliance of the revenue on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nDilip Kumar (9 SCC 1) is misplaced. The present issue is not one of strict versus\nliberal construction of a deduction provision; rather, the issue is whether a claim\nduly made in the return through computation notes and supported by audit report is\na valid claim in law. Once the revenue has itself accepted the claim in subsequent\nyears, the principle of consistency,…

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

ITTA/316/2011HC Telangana15 Dec 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…utmie the object, intent and purpose of the Act and especially the scheme of Section 17 of the Act. The Act has a basic and fundamental purpose. The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra t. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalija and others, (2006) 9 SCC 1 has held thus: ' //63admittedly, Parliament has enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act provides for establishment of National Council for Teacher • Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and cobrdinated development of the teacher-eduation system i:hroughout the country, the regulation and • proper mainten…

BHAVANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY NIYAMITA ,SIRSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…ITANo.1074/Bang/2025 M/s. Bhavana Co op Credit Society Niyamitha, Sirsi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Bhavana Co-op. Credit Society Niyamita #38, Market Road Principal CIT Vs. Sirsi 581 401 Hubali PAN NO :AACAB5033D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Main Road, Gonikoppal Principal CIT Vs. Virajpet Taluk Bengaluru-3 Kodagu 571 213 PAN NO : AAAAG1109M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appel…

GONIKOPPAL PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,KODAGU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

ASL CAPITAL HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn in terms above

ITA 1125/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.1125/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Add.CIT

Section 127Section 147Section 260A

…. 3. None appeared for the assessee despite service of notice. 4. We have heard ld. counsel for the revenue. We find that the very question fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 1. Therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 260A is exercisable by the High court within whose territorial jurisdiction the assessing officer is located. The Court has held as follows: “45. In conclusion, we hold that appeals against every decision of ITAT shall lie only before the H…

GMEDAPADU PACS,GMEDAPADU vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

ITA 574/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.574/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) G Medapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Sri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…pretation that deduction and exemption provisions must be interpreted strictly, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the Revenue. This principle has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1, wherein it was held that the onus is on the assessee to clearly demonstrate eligibility for deduction. In this case, not only has the appellant failed to demonstrate such eligibility, but it has also not produced any evidence of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning the interest income, which could otherwise have been deductible un…

M/S R C JEWELLERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-32 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 234ASection 270A

…upra) which are no more found to be binding precedents since having not considered the foregoing stipulation of “to the assessee or any other person” in light of section 2(31) of the Act. Learned CIT-DR also refers to Commissioner Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) and para 21(d) in CIT Vs. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom.) that we ought to adopt stricter interpretation and even an hon’ble non-jurisdictional high court decision carries a persuasive effect only. 14 R C Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. 12. We further wish to emphasize here that learned counsel has not quoted even a single judi…

ITO(TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR vs. SECL, BILASPUR, SECL HASDEO AREA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 301/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

…cer for fresh assessment. Going by stricter application / interpretation of law as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Koreas India Ltd.’ reported in AIR 1977 SC 132 and further in the landmark case of ‘Dilip Kumar Vs CCE’ reported 9 SCC 1 we are mindful to hold that, while dealing with the first appeals unless the order under challenge before the first appellate authority order is framed ex-parte by the assessing officer u/s 144 of the Act, any action of remanding any subject, ITAT-Raipur Page 12 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 201…

ITO(TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR vs. SECL, BILASPUR, WEST JHAGGRAKHAND

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 300/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ITO(TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR vs. SECL, BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 299/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

Showing 1–20 of 533 · Page 1 of 27

...