What is Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT authority for?

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

How many judgments cite Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT?

567 judgments on BharatTax cite Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (37 ITR 271), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 147, Section 68, Section 148.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (37 ITR 271)

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…ection 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In fact, the disallowance is made on conjectures, surmises and suspicion. It is setteled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. Vs. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: 1. 37 ITR 151 Omar Salay Mohammad Sait Vs. CIT 2. 26 ITR 736 Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT 3. 26 ITR 775 Dhakeshwari Cotton MillsLtd. Vs. CIT 4. 37 ITR 288 Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 5.…

ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Pradeep Patil, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2671/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2671/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Acit Vs Pradeep Patil Circle-49(1) 306, Gold Plaza Building, Room No. 1505, E-2 Block, Gurudwara Road, Dr.Spm Civic Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Baipp4632G

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ly well settled that the Courts decision must rest not upon suspicion but upon legal grounds established by legal testimony. In this regard, the reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. (b) Raising of presumption itself does not amount to proof. Presumption however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817& D. M. Kamani (HUF) 65 TTJ (Pat) 504. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i…

Maruthi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 873/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…mises basis the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Malla Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 872/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Section 12A

…mises basis the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Malla Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 871/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…mises basis the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Cmr Engineering Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 870/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…iety basis the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Cmr Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 869/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…more specified violations referred to under Section 12AB(4) and the cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Cmr Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 868/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…more specified violations referred to under Section 12AB(4) and the cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Cmr Technical Education Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 867/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Section 12A

…mises basis the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Cmr Technical Education Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 866/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…mises basis the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

K M R Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 865/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…mises basis the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

K M R Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 864/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…mises basis the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Marri Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 863/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…mises basis the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 861/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…more specified violations referred to under Section 12AB(4) and the cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 860/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…more specified violations referred to under Section 12AB(4) and the cannot be cancelled. In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was…

Anand Mellaram Issrani, Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69C

…ngs without any cogent material brush findings without any cogent material linking the assessee to such alleged manipulation. (Umacharan linking the assessee to such alleged manipulation. linking the assessee to such alleged manipulation. Shaw & Bros. v. CIT, 37 ITR 271 (SC); , 37 ITR 271 (SC); Daulat Ram Rawatmull v. CIT Daulat Ram Rawatmull v. CIT, 87 ITR 349 (SC)). Swati Bajaj Swati Bajaj (Cal HC, 2022) upholds additions in (Cal HC, 2022) upholds additions in penny-stock cases where the stock cases where the price surge is demonstrably price surge is demonstrably manipulated and the assessee fails to offer a a…

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…relied upon by him, the index of which is as below:- S. No. Particulars Page No. Hon’ble Supreme Court 1. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 1-7 [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) 2. Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 8-13 [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) 14-17 4. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) 18-22 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate 23-25 Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC). Jurisdictional Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court 6. Smt. Harshila Chordia vs Income-tax Officer Appeal No. 4 of 26-30 200…

Bannariamman Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

ITA 3314/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT/DR

Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…y unsustainable, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same." 8.55 It is by now settled in law that that suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof or evidence as held by the Supreme Court in Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Vs CIT (37 ITR 271). Any ITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024 (AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22) ITA Nos.3353 & 3354 to 3358/Chny/2024 (AYs 2015-16 & 2017-18 to 2021-22) M/s.Bannari Amman Educational Trust :: 103 :: addition(s) to income must be based on cogent, credible, credible, and corroborated evidence, which we find is not present in the case before us. In light of…

Bannariamman Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

ITA 3311/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3310 To 3314/Chny/2024 िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 M/S.Bannari Amman- Educational Trust, 1212, Trichy Road, Coimbatore-641 018. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaatb 1235 C] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3353 & 3354 To 3358/Chny/2024 िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 To 2021-22 & Cross-Objection No.42/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.3353/Chny/2024) िनधारणवष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai. V. M/S.Bannari Amman- Educational Trust, 1212, Trichy Road, Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aaatb 1235 C] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual)/Ld.Ar Department By : Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, Cit/Dr सुनवाईकतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2025 घोषणाकतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT/DR

Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…wholly unsustainable, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same." 8.55 It is by now settled in law that that suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof or evidence as held by the Supreme Court in Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Vs CIT (37 ITR 271). Any ITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024 (AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22) ITA Nos.3353 & 3354 to 3358/Chny/2024 (AYs 2015-16 & 2017-18 to 2021-22) M/s.Bannari Amman Educational Trust :: 103 :: addition(s) to income must be based on cogent, credible, credible, and corroborated evidence, which we find is not present in the case before us. In light of the above…

Kamal Khetan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2702/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V /s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). Therefore, we find that onus as cast upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record, any cogent material to sustain those additions, could not be discharged by the revenue. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without esta…

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

What is Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Pradeep Patil, New Delhi

Maruthi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Malla Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Malla Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Cmr Engineering Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Cmr Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Cmr Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Cmr Technical Education Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Cmr Technical Education Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

K M R Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

K M R Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Marri Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Anand Mellaram Issrani, Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

Bannariamman Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

Bannariamman Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

Kamal Khetan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai