How many judgments cite Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT?

1,596 judgments on BharatTax cite Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 8D, Section 37(1), Section 1961.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

402 ITR 640Supreme Court of India2018#21 most cited

What is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

1,596

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maxopp Investment Ltd v CIT · Maxopp SC 2018 · Section 14A disallowance · Rule 8D application · expenditure for exempt income · only dividend bearing investments · satisfaction Section 14A(2) · strategic investment disallowance · disallowance not automatic · 402 ITR 640

Also reported as

91 Taxmann.com 154254 Taxmann 325301 CTR 489

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 8D Section 37(1)Section 1961 Section 250 Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)section 14a(2)strategic investment disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 10(34)section 14a section 36(1)(vii)section 40a(2)enduring benefit book profits section 115j

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the assessing officer, whereas the Ld.AR submitted that where there is no be made. For this proposition, he relied upon the following judgements:- 1. Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd 394 ITR 449 (SC) 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd 402 ITR 640 (SC) 3. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd 400 ITR 217 (SC) 4. Anshul Speciality Molecules Ltd ITA No.4436/M/16 5. G.K.K. Capital Market (P) Ltd ITA No.805/Kol/2012 6. Taurian Engineering P Ltd ITA No.7239/Mum/2016 7. Ashok M Wadhwa ITA No.1871 & 2576/Mum/2012 8. Wadhwa Residency (P) Ltd 95 Taxmannn.com294 (Mum) 9. Integrated Coal Mining Ltd v…

M/S. Nyati Builders Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 1201/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujarathiFor Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen

Section 14A

…case of Karla Overseas and Precision Engineering Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1328/PUN/2018 decided on 07-03-2019 by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 402 ITR 640 has restricted the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. 5. On the other hand Ms. Shabana Parveen representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. 6. Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. The only issue in appeal by the assessee is against disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Ass…

Asia Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5829/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. H.P. Mahajani, &For Respondent: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nder appeal. Now, before us the learned Counsel for the assessee conceded that the issue of investments which are strategic in nature is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). However, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the investments on which assessee has not received any exempt income during the year under appeal, the issue is again covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal of Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. [2017] 58…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gcil Finance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 3092/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. R.C JainFor Respondent: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…not be included for the purposes of computation of disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A cannot be accepted as the issue is no more res-integra keeping in view Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited v. CIT , reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC) . Similarly , the contention of the assessee that it has made strategic investments which should not be included for the purposes of computing disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the 1961 Act cannot be accepted in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited(supra). The assessee has made investments in pr…

Sowraj Investments Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle-6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3175/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Mr.M.Viswanathan,C.A +For Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the material on record. The Assessing Officer vide para 2.5 of the assessment order gave a categorical finding that the explanation of assessee cannot be accepted. Further, the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. C.I.T in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) upheld the applicability of provisions of section 14A, even in respect of strategic investments. Thus, the contentions :- 6 -: of the assessee that provisions of section 14A cannot be invoked are devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6.1 As regards Ground No.2 challenges the disallowan…

DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Payone Enterprises (P) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3682/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Payone Enterprises (P) Income Tax – 1(3)(1) Ltd., Room No.540, 5Th Floor 6Th Floor, Manek Mashal, Aayakar Bhavan 90, Veer Nariman Road M.K.Road Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aafca4453K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Act. We find no infirmity in the said order of the ld. CIT(A) as the same has been rendered by following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and this issue is also now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 02/08/2019 (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 02/08/2019 KARUNA, sr.ps 3 M/s. Payone Enterprises P. Ltd Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant 1. The Respondent. 2. T…

Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5944/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1/9-B, Jindal House, Asaf Ali Circle-5(2), C.R. Building, Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacc2744C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok Khandelwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashima Neb, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ce under section 14A of 3 the Act in respect of strategic investment in subsidiaries, he submitted that decisions relied upon by the Ld. counsel are no longer valid after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee shown dividend income of Rs.12,92,735/- on account of investment in shares and securities of Tata Motors Ltd., Tata Consultancy Ltd. and Mudra Port and claimed the same as exempt. The assessee made disallowance of Rs. 14A of the Act amounting to…

ACIT Cir 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Fine Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result,both the appeal filed by the Revenue and

ITA 1979/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri. G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 271Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1627/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s Fine Estate Private Limited 4th Floor, ManeckjiWadiaBldg, ……………. Appellant 127 M.G. Road, Mumbai PAN-AAACF2738F v/s DCIT, Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai ……………. Respondent ITA No.1979/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai ……………. Appellant v/s M/s Fine Estate Private Limited 4th Floor, ManeckjiWadiaBldg, ……………. Respondent 127 M.G. Road, Mumbai PAN-AAACF2738F Assesseeby : Sh. Rakesh Mohan, AR Reven…

Fine Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result,both the appeal filed by the Revenue and

ITA 1627/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri. G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 271Section 36

Minal Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7419/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Minal Industries Limited Deputy Commissioner Of V. 603, A Wing, Minal Complex Income Tax – 10(2)(2) Off Saki Vihar Road Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 072 Pan: Aabcm 3102 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kiran Mehta Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 1Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Minal Industries Limited Deputy Commissioner of v. 603, A Wing, Minal Complex Income Tax – 10(2)(2) Off Saki Vihar Road Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 072 PAN: AABCM 3102 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kiran Mehta Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 57, Mumbai [hereinafter…

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4923/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 115JSection 14A

…able to approve the direction of learned Commissioner (Appeals) to exclude investment made in subsidiaries for computing disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii), in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v/s CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 640. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year under consideration. Further, we make it clear, the disallowance under section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under conside…

Robust Marketing Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 621/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Robust Marketing Services Assistant Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Flat No. 502, 5Th Income Tax, Range 8(1), Vs. Floor, Sterling Heritage, Mumbai, Room No. 624, 6Th Plot No. 388, Sankara Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mattam Road, Matunga Road, Mumbai-400020. (Cr), Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aabcr7635J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR

Section 143(3)

…The order of the Tribunal in M/s Nice Bombay Transport (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Punjab National Bank (supra) relied on by the Ld. counsel are distinguishable because of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). The same issue arose before the ITAT ‘D’ Bench, Mumbai in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No. 1238/Mum/2016. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.09.2018 held : “5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that for the purpose of compu…

Oasis Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 4561/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 147Section 14A

…o earned Rs. 14,077/- has been offered to tax. Hence, learned counsel pleaded that no disallowance u/s. 14A is required in this case. 13. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, I find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (402 ITR 640) has upheld Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala [2017] 391 ITR 218, wherein restriction of disallowance u/s. 14A to the extent of exempt income earned has been upheld. Hence, it is now settled that no disallowance can be done over and above exempt income earned. Now in this case, it is the su…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Q.H. Talbros Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR

Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.806 & 4939/DEL/2016 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-3, v. Q.H. Talbros Ltd., Gurgaon. Plot No.400, Udyog Vihar, Phase-III, Gurgaon. TAN/PAN: AAACO2191D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R. Respondent by: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR Date of hearing: 10 07 2019 Date of pronouncement: 26 07 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned orders date…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Q.H. Talbros Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4939/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR

Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

M/S. Apollo Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 340/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Laliet Kumar[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Manu K. Giri, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…-. 8. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 9. This issue is no more res integra and has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd 91 Taxmann.com 154. The gist of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as under: “(1) When the shares are held by the assessee not to earn exempt income but to retain controlling stake in the investee company, the dominant purpose test cannot be said to be relevant for the purpose of Sec 14A and disallowance u/s 14A can be made. It is not the dominan…

Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle -12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3047/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Hathway Cable & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Datacom Limited Of Income Tax, Circle- Rahejas, 1St Floor 12(2)(2) Corners Of Main Avenue & Mumbai V.P.Road, Santa Cruz (West) Mumbai – 400 054 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc6814B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Hathway Cable & Of Income- Tax Datacom Limited Rahejas, 4Th Floor Circle-12(2)(2), Room No.145, 1St Floor, Corners Of Main Avenue & Aayakar Bhavan V.P.Road M.K.Road Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400054 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc6814B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Manoj C. Dixit Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing 15/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): This Appeal In Ita No.3047/Mum/2018 For A.Y.2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, M/S. Hathway Cable Of Datacom Ltd.

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM M/s. Hathway Cable & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Datacom Limited of Income Tax, Circle- Rahejas, 1st Floor 12(2)(2) Corners of Main Avenue & Mumbai V.P.Road, Santa Cruz (West) Mumbai – 400 054 PAN/GIR No. AAACC6814B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Hathway Cable and of Income- Tax Datacom Limited Rahejas, 4th Floor Circle-12(2)(2), Room No.145, 1st Floor, Corners of Main Avenue & Aayakar Bhavan V.P.Road M.K.Road Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400054 PAN/GIR No.AAACC6…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1316/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…provisions of Section 14A of the Act cannot be applied in case of exempt income earned from investment held in stock in trade. Reasoning of the ld. CIT(A) has been overturned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640. Therefore contention of the assessee that provisions of Section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked, when the securities are held as stock-in-trade, cannot be accepted. As regards to other limb of the argument of the assessee that in the absences of any finding by the Assessing Officer as to how the contention of the assessee that no expenditure wa…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1315/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1130/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)