Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT

41 ITR 624Supreme Court of India1961#6683 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11(1)(d)

Issues it is cited on

specified fundsection 10(20a)corpus fundsection 10(20)section 13(8)advancement of general public utilitysection 58purposive interpretationsection 12aa(3)section 60weighted deductionsection 35(2ab)

Judgments citing Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO COMPLEX, HAPUR CHUNGI vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOTIJHEEL, KANPUR

ITA 4580/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

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

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

…t (if the receipts in question at their best be treated as income of the “appellant authority") stood diverted by an “over riding title” in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT reported in (1961) 41 ITR 624. The Appellant has further submitted that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Saharanpur Development Authority vs. 5.2.1. I have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. I have also perused the assessment order. I have also perused the assessment or…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…t had no right, title or interest of its own in the said fund. It was a case where the receipts in question stood diverted by an, ‘overriding title’ in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT, 1961 41 ITR 624. It was further submitted that following the said decision, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit & Pal X-Rays Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 370, had held that where the obligation to pay an amount was attached to the very source of the income, it was not a case of mere applicable of income but it was a case of diversion of income by an overriding…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…t had no right, title or interest of its own in the said fund. It was a case where the receipts in question stood diverted by an, ‘overriding title’ in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT, 1961 41 ITR 624. It was further submitted that following the said decision, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit & Pal X-Rays Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 370, had held that where the obligation to pay an amount was attached to the very source of the income, it was not a case of mere applicable of income but it was a case of diversion of income by an overriding…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…t had no right, title or interest of its own in the said fund. It was a case where the receipts in question stood diverted by an, ‘overriding title’ in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT, 1961 41 ITR 624. It was further submitted that following the said decision, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit & Pal X-Rays Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 370, had held that where the obligation to pay an amount was attached to the very source of the income, it was not a case of mere applicable of income but it was a case of diversion of income by an overriding…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL BANK OF AGRICULTURE AN RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

ITA 4010/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

…of the proposition on diversion of income by overriding title:- (a) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinerivala (126 Taxman 161)(SC) (b) CIT vs. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (88 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sithaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367)(SC) (d) Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT (41 ITR 624)(SC) 9. The Ld A.R, however, submitted that the RIDF/STCRC are schemes framed by the Government of India and it has appointed the assessee as implementing agency. He submitted that, as per the scheme, the scheduled commercial banks would deposit money with the assessee equivalent to the short fall in the priority sector lending and the said money…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL BANK OF AGRICULTURE AN RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

ITA 4009/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

…of the proposition on diversion of income by overriding title:- (a) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinerivala (126 Taxman 161)(SC) (b) CIT vs. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (88 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sithaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367)(SC) (d) Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT (41 ITR 624)(SC) 9. The Ld A.R, however, submitted that the RIDF/STCRC are schemes framed by the Government of India and it has appointed the assessee as implementing agency. He submitted that, as per the scheme, the scheduled commercial banks would deposit money with the assessee equivalent to the short fall in the priority sector lending and the said money…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL BANK OF AGRICULTURE AN RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

ITA 4007/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

…of the proposition on diversion of income by overriding title:- (a) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinerivala (126 Taxman 161)(SC) (b) CIT vs. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (88 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sithaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367)(SC) (d) Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT (41 ITR 624)(SC) 9. The Ld A.R, however, submitted that the RIDF/STCRC are schemes framed by the Government of India and it has appointed the assessee as implementing agency. He submitted that, as per the scheme, the scheduled commercial banks would deposit money with the assessee equivalent to the short fall in the priority sector lending and the said money…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3650/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

…of the proposition on diversion of income by overriding title:- (a) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinerivala (126 Taxman 161)(SC) (b) CIT vs. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (88 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sithaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367)(SC) (d) Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT (41 ITR 624)(SC) 9. The Ld A.R, however, submitted that the RIDF/STCRC are schemes framed by the Government of India and it has appointed the assessee as implementing agency. He submitted that, as per the scheme, the scheduled commercial banks would deposit money with the assessee equivalent to the short fall in the priority sector lending and the said money…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

ITA 4789/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 161Section 161(1)Section 61

…ad been created and there was diversion of income unlike in the first transaction where a part of the rent payable to the lessor was to be paid to a trust. This case is factually different and accordingly not applicable. (iii) Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT[1961] 41 ITR 624 (SC) The facts in the case on hand are clearly different from the cited case, as the PTC holders have an undivided proportionate interest in the asset i.e. the receivable and have paid consideration for acquiring the same. (iv) K.A. Ramachar v. CIT[1961] 42 ITR 25 (SC) The Hon'ble Apex Court had concluded that income was not diverted by overridi…

INTEGRAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1075/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (ACIT)
Section 145Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

…before it reached the assessee. This ITA No. 809/JP/2015 & 1075/JP/2018 14 Integral Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ACIT/ITO case is more akin to Poona Electric Supply case (supra) to which we shall shortly advert to. 35. In Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 624 (SC), the assessee who was a registered dealer of 500 ordinary shares in a limited company, assigned to his wife, by a deed of settlement, the right, title and interest to all dividends and sums of money which might be declared or which may be due and payable in respect of those shares for the term of her natural life and covenanted to deliver and…

M/S AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6767/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…6766/Del/15 AY:2010-11 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P Ltd./Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt.Ltd. income is a mere application of the income (CIT vs. Dr. Rameshwar Lal Pahwa, (1980) 123 ITR 681, 687-88 (Del). Also see Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 624 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Nandiniben Narottamdas, (1983) 140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees by which while retaining the interest in the property, its income would be allowed to go to some…

M/S AMBIENCE HOTELS & RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6766/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…6766/Del/15 AY:2010-11 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P Ltd./Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt.Ltd. income is a mere application of the income (CIT vs. Dr. Rameshwar Lal Pahwa, (1980) 123 ITR 681, 687-88 (Del). Also see Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 624 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Nandiniben Narottamdas, (1983) 140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees by which while retaining the interest in the property, its income would be allowed to go to some…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6414/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…6766/Del/15 AY:2010-11 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P Ltd./Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt.Ltd. income is a mere application of the income (CIT vs. Dr. Rameshwar Lal Pahwa, (1980) 123 ITR 681, 687-88 (Del). Also see Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 624 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Nandiniben Narottamdas, (1983) 140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees by which while retaining the interest in the property, its income would be allowed to go to some…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6413/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…6766/Del/15 AY:2010-11 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P Ltd./Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt.Ltd. income is a mere application of the income (CIT vs. Dr. Rameshwar Lal Pahwa, (1980) 123 ITR 681, 687-88 (Del). Also see Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 624 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Nandiniben Narottamdas, (1983) 140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees by which while retaining the interest in the property, its income would be allowed to go to some…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…of Income Tax Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 70/137 [1961] 41 ITR 624 (SC) dealing with the case of the Assessee, who by a written instrument assigned the Shares of a Company in favour of his wife, held that the Dividends received from such Shares would continue to be taxed in the hands of the Settlor-husband, since the Assessee merely applied his income, since he has entered into a legal obligation to apply i…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…of Income Tax Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 70/137 [1961] 41 ITR 624 (SC) dealing with the case of the Assessee, who by a written instrument assigned the Shares of a Company in favour of his wife, held that the Dividends received from such Shares would continue to be taxed in the hands of the Settlor-husband, since the Assessee merely applied his income, since he has entered into a legal obligation to apply i…

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIZATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 14I, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…ust had been created and there was diversion of income unlike in the first transaction where a part of the rent payable to the lessor was to be paid to a trust. This case is factually different and accordingly not applicable. (iii) Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT 41 ITR 624 (SC) The facts in the case on hand are clearly different from the cited case, as the PTC holders have an undivided proportionate interest in the asset i.e. the receivable and have paid consideration for acquiring the same. (iv) K.A. Ramachar vs. CIT 42 ITR 25 (SC) The Hon'ble Apex Court had concluded that income was not diverted by overriding titl…

Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT (41 ITR 624) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax