State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT

273 ITR 510High Court2005#4555 most cited
26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Judgments citing State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT

SHRIRAM FIANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 2635/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2635/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Finance Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Since Shriram City Union Finance Vs. Of Income Tax, Limited Amalgamated With Corporate Circle 3(1), Shriram Transport Finance Co. Chennai. Ltd. & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Ltd.,) Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…he real income which is to be deduced on the basis of the accounting system regularly maintained by the assessee and that was done by the assessee in the present case.” 7. This Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 510, to which one of us is a party (P.D.Dinakaran, J.), held that the Government Securities held by the assessee-Bank have to be treated as stock-in-trade and not investment by following the Supreme Court judgment in Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank-s case [1999] 240 ITR 255. In view of the above reasoning of the Supreme Court, we are of the vi…

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

ITA 641/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ion, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both t…

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

ITA 362/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ion, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both t…

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

ITA 1544/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ion, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both t…

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

ITA 1543/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ion, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both t…

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

ITA 1542/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ion, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both t…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

ITA 1531/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ion, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both t…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

ITA 1530/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ion, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both t…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

ITA 1529/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ion, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both t…

DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

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

ITA 2169/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA &
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)

…Chny/2018 5 5. The ld.AR also raised the issue on merits that the issue of depreciation on investments amounting to Rs.41,80,57,696/-. The issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case, as reported in [2005] 273 ITR 510 (Mad) and even the SLP filed by the Department has been dismissed vide SLP No.9458/2010. The ld.AR stated that this decision has been followed by the Tribunal, Chennai Bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.1497/Chny/2013 dated 28.02.2019, as reported in [2019] 72 ITR (Trib) 26. The ld.AR stated on merits that the issu…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1359/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…owed as the capital loss the same was rightly allowed by the learned CIT – A as a normal business loss in view of the factual position stated. He further supported the order of the learned CIT – A relying on the decision of the honourable madras High Court in 273 ITR 510 and 291 ITR 144. He therefore submitted that though learned CIT A has held that there is no capital loss incurred by the assessee but has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 37 (1) of the act or u/s 29 of the income tax act. He submitted that the profit and loss of the banking business is required to be computed after valuing the invent…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IFCI, NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2934/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…owed as the capital loss the same was rightly allowed by the learned CIT – A as a normal business loss in view of the factual position stated. He further supported the order of the learned CIT – A relying on the decision of the honourable madras High Court in 273 ITR 510 and 291 ITR 144. He therefore submitted that though learned CIT A has held that there is no capital loss incurred by the assessee but has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 37 (1) of the act or u/s 29 of the income tax act. He submitted that the profit and loss of the banking business is required to be computed after valuing the invent…

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2205/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 2120/Del/2005 2001-02 IFCI LIMITED The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. IFCI Towers Income Tax 61 Nehru Place Circle – 11(1) New Delhi C R Building PAN: AAACT0668G I P Estate New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No Assessment Year 2205/Del/2005 2001-2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income IFCI LIMITED Vs. Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) 61 Nehru Place C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) For As…

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2120/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 2120/Del/2005 2001-02 IFCI LIMITED The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. IFCI Towers Income Tax 61 Nehru Place Circle – 11(1) New Delhi C R Building PAN: AAACT0668G I P Estate New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No Assessment Year 2205/Del/2005 2001-2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income IFCI LIMITED Vs. Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) 61 Nehru Place C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) For As…

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)

…t case, as in the earlier years, for the purpose of income-tax proceedings, the investments were treated as stock-in-trade. Thus, grounds of appeal Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are disposed of. Even the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, 273 ITR 510 took a similar view. Therefore the fact that the assessee bank has shifted the investment from one category to another is of no relevance, in as much as, fall in value of investment is held to be allowable as deduction. Thus, ground of appeal No.3 filed by the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 24. No.11…

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)

…t case, as in the earlier years, for the purpose of income-tax proceedings, the investments were treated as stock-in-trade. Thus, grounds of appeal Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are disposed of. Even the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, 273 ITR 510 took a similar view. Therefore the fact that the assessee bank has shifted the investment from one category to another is of no relevance, in as much as, fall in value of investment is held to be allowable as deduction. Thus, ground of appeal No.3 filed by the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 24. No.11…

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)

…t case, as in the earlier years, for the purpose of income-tax proceedings, the investments were treated as stock-in-trade. Thus, grounds of appeal Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are disposed of. Even the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, 273 ITR 510 took a similar view. Therefore the fact that the assessee bank has shifted the investment from one category to another is of no relevance, in as much as, fall in value of investment is held to be allowable as deduction. Thus, ground of appeal No.3 filed by the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 24. No.11…

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

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

ITA 1129/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)

…t case, as in the earlier years, for the purpose of income-tax proceedings, the investments were treated as stock-in-trade. Thus, grounds of appeal Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are disposed of. Even the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, 273 ITR 510 took a similar view. Therefore the fact that the assessee bank has shifted the investment from one category to another is of no relevance, in as much as, fall in value of investment is held to be allowable as deduction. Thus, ground of appeal No.3 filed by the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 24. No.11…

ITO WD 1(3), KALYAN vs. NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD, BHIWANDI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7224/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, M/S Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ward-1(3), Ltd. बनाम/ 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, H. No.27, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Opp. Bank Of India, Kalyan Bhiwani, Maharashtra-421302 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaan0638A

…he Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix along with various case laws like Uco Bank vs CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC), CIT vs Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 (Bom.), CIT vs City Union Bank Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 144 (Mad.) and CIT vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. 273 ITR 510 (Mad.), etc. were considered and following the decision in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 held that the amount written off by the assessee as ‘amortization of premium on government securities’ in ‘HTM’ category was an allowable expenditure. Since, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee that too in the case of assesse…

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2035/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 in TC No. 1162 to 1168 dated 12.03.2012, observed that the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal has considered the interest paid on purchase of investments is Revenue expenditure and also relied on the decision of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., 273 ITR 510 (Mad). Subsequently, Revenue has challenged the decision of the Madras High Court and filed SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was dismissed. With these observations, :- 9 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 the Ld. CIT(A) considered the Broken Period Interest as Revenue expenditure and allowed the grounds of the ass…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2