TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT

280 ITR 491High Court2006#3722 most cited

What is TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines cannot override the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. Provisions of the Income Tax Act prevail over RBI directives.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT · 280 ITR 491 · RBI guidelines · Income Tax Act · statutory provisions · overriding effect

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 145Section 28Section 36(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(via)section 145(1)section 22(1)section 36(1)(viia)section 10(2)section 36(1)(vii)interest on securitiesright to receivesection 18section 36(2)mercantile system of accountingsection 22

Judgments citing TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT

SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/PAT/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA Nos. 33& 34/PAT/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank SamastipurKshetriya Gramin bank (merged DCIT, Circle-3, with Dakshin Bihar Gramin bank) C/o Nirmal & Associates, CA, Nepali Kothi, DCIT, Darbhanga, Bihar Vs. Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFAS8891R Assessee by : Shri Nishant Maitin, AR Revenue by : Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR Date of hearing: 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 09.12.2025 O R D E R P…

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2430/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…reference of RBI’s guideline is not tenable as the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of TN Power Financial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Joint CIT has held that the RBI guidelines cannot over-ride statutory provisions of Income tax Act.(280 ITR 491). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technology (320 ITR 57) has held that RBI Directives do not override the provisions of the I.T.Act. Further assessee’s claim that such shares were trading stock of bank is also not acceptable as assessee is in banking business and it has never placed any evidence that it also engaged in trading…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2429/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…reference of RBI’s guideline is not tenable as the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of TN Power Financial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Joint CIT has held that the RBI guidelines cannot over-ride statutory provisions of Income tax Act.(280 ITR 491). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technology (320 ITR 57) has held that RBI Directives do not override the provisions of the I.T.Act. Further assessee’s claim that such shares were trading stock of bank is also not acceptable as assessee is in banking business and it has never placed any evidence that it also engaged in trading…

ACIT CIRCLE 1 (1)&TPS, MANGALURU vs. M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED.,, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2333/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…Therefore, premium costs paid on such investment cannot be charged or treated as revenue item. The AO further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in 280 ITR 491 and held that RBI norms/guidelines cannot override the mandatory provision of Income Tax Act. Thus, the AO disallows the sum of Rs. 8,16,10,183/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 22. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by observing that issue is covered in the favour of the assessee…

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2332/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…Therefore, premium costs paid on such investment cannot be charged or treated as revenue item. The AO further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in 280 ITR 491 and held that RBI norms/guidelines cannot override the mandatory provision of Income Tax Act. Thus, the AO disallows the sum of Rs. 8,16,10,183/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 22. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by observing that issue is covered in the favour of the assessee…

ACIT CIRCLE1(1)& TPS , MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. M/S SOUTH KANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2331/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…Therefore, premium costs paid on such investment cannot be charged or treated as revenue item. The AO further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in 280 ITR 491 and held that RBI norms/guidelines cannot override the mandatory provision of Income Tax Act. Thus, the AO disallows the sum of Rs. 8,16,10,183/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 22. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by observing that issue is covered in the favour of the assessee…

M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 219/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…Therefore, premium costs paid on such investment cannot be charged or treated as revenue item. The AO further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in 280 ITR 491 and held that RBI norms/guidelines cannot override the mandatory provision of Income Tax Act. Thus, the AO disallows the sum of Rs. 8,16,10,183/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 22. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by observing that issue is covered in the favour of the assessee…

M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 218/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…Therefore, premium costs paid on such investment cannot be charged or treated as revenue item. The AO further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in 280 ITR 491 and held that RBI norms/guidelines cannot override the mandatory provision of Income Tax Act. Thus, the AO disallows the sum of Rs. 8,16,10,183/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 22. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by observing that issue is covered in the favour of the assessee…

M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 217/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…Therefore, premium costs paid on such investment cannot be charged or treated as revenue item. The AO further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in 280 ITR 491 and held that RBI norms/guidelines cannot override the mandatory provision of Income Tax Act. Thus, the AO disallows the sum of Rs. 8,16,10,183/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 22. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by observing that issue is covered in the favour of the assessee…

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4722/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3691/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

…or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year. Drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Tower finance infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. JCIT 280 ITR 491 (Mad), the AO was of the opinion that the RBI guidelines cannot override the statutory provisions of Income-tax. Further heavily relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Limited vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC), the AO came to the conclusion that the claim of the assessee for bad debt on account of loss…

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3691/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

…or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year. Drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tower finance infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. JCIT 280 ITR 491 (Mad), the AO was of the opinion that the RBI guidelines cannot override the statutory provisions of Income-tax. Further heavily relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Limited vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC), the AO came to the conclusion that the claim of the assessee for bad debt on account of loss…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. M/S THE MANGALORE CATHOLIC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, D.R
Section 145

…to Maturity” are permanent long term investment made by the assessee bank, which are predominantly capital in nature. Ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court judgement in TN Power Finance & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs JCIT(2006) 280 ITR 491 (Mad) wherein, it is held that RBI guidelines cannot override the mandatory provisions of income tax, is applicable in this case. 7. For these and such other grounds that may be urged that the order of the CIT(A), on the above points may be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1) , MANGALORE vs. M/S THE MANGALORE CATHOLIC CO-OP. BANK LTD., MANGALORE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 117/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Balram RaoFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 143(3)Section 145

…Maturity” are permanent long term investment made by the assessee bank, which are predominantly capital in nature. Ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court judgment in the TN Power Finance & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.vs JCIT (2006) 280 ITR 491 (Mad) wherein, it is held that RBI guideline cannot override the mandatory provisions of income tax, is applicable in this case. 5. For these and such other grounds that may be urged that the order of the CIT(A), on the above points may be set aside and the order of the assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK , BELLARY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2786/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate
Section 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.35 & 36/Bang/2016 Assessment year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s Pragathi Grameena Bank, Circle-1, Now known as M/s Pragathi Krishna Bellary. Grameena Bank Head Office, Sangankal Road, Gandhi Nagar, Bellary. PAN – AAAAP 5593 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s Pragathi Grameena Bank, Circle-1, Now known as M/s Pragathi Krishna Bellary. Grameena Bank Head Office, Sangank…

ASST.C.I.T., BELLARY vs. PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK, BELLARY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 36/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate
Section 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.35 & 36/Bang/2016 Assessment year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s Pragathi Grameena Bank, Circle-1, Now known as M/s Pragathi Krishna Bellary. Grameena Bank Head Office, Sangankal Road, Gandhi Nagar, Bellary. PAN – AAAAP 5593 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s Pragathi Grameena Bank, Circle-1, Now known as M/s Pragathi Krishna Bellary. Grameena Bank Head Office, Sangank…

ASST.C.I.T., BELLARY vs. PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK, BELLARY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 35/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate
Section 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.35 & 36/Bang/2016 Assessment year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s Pragathi Grameena Bank, Circle-1, Now known as M/s Pragathi Krishna Bellary. Grameena Bank Head Office, Sangankal Road, Gandhi Nagar, Bellary. PAN – AAAAP 5593 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s Pragathi Grameena Bank, Circle-1, Now known as M/s Pragathi Krishna Bellary. Grameena Bank Head Office, Sangank…

M/S SUVARNA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 379/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Lokesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR)

…der of authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the AO has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of TN Power Finance and infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. JCIT as reported in 280 ITR 491(MAD) and therefore, first we consider the applicability of this judgment before examining the applicability of various tribunal orders cited by the ld. AR of assessee before us. In this case, the issue involved before the Hon’ble Madras High Court was this as to whether the tribunal is correct in upholding the order of CIT(A) allowing for provisi…

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 931/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…e had no explanation for the claim. Hence, he disallowed the same. While disallowing the same, the Assessing Officer followed the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., v. JCIT (2006) 280 ITR 491. Aggrieved, the assessee moved the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 05. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after considering the submissions made before him and following the decision of the Madras High Court cited supra, came to the conclusion that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has that merely because the RBI…

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1493/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…e had no explanation for the claim. Hence, he disallowed the same. While disallowing the same, the Assessing Officer followed the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., v. JCIT (2006) 280 ITR 491. Aggrieved, the assessee moved the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 05. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after considering the submissions made before him and following the decision of the Madras High Court cited supra, came to the conclusion that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has that merely because the RBI…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1440/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…e had no explanation for the claim. Hence, he disallowed the same. While disallowing the same, the Assessing Officer followed the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., v. JCIT (2006) 280 ITR 491. Aggrieved, the assessee moved the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 05. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after considering the submissions made before him and following the decision of the Madras High Court cited supra, came to the conclusion that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has that merely because the RBI…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2