What is Union of India v. Ajit Jain authority for?

An assessment under section 153A is void ab initio if the search conducted under section 132(1) is invalid or based on suspicion rather than reasonable belief.

How many judgments cite Union of India v. Ajit Jain?

109 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Ajit Jain (260 ITR 80), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Ajit Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153A, Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 234A.

Union of India v. Ajit Jain (260 ITR 80)

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 337/BANG/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…ang/2012 ITA Nos.412 & 415/Bang/2012 Page 4 of 35 bad in law [224 ITR 19 (SC)] and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. iii. The learned authorities below has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid and to assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. 3. The authori…

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 336/BANG/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…ang/2012 ITA Nos.412 & 415/Bang/2012 Page 4 of 35 bad in law [224 ITR 19 (SC)] and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. iii. The learned authorities below has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid and to assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. 3. The authori…

M/S Dream Logistics Company (India) Pvtt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11

ITA 996/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind, Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 153ASection 234

…as the conditions specified in terms of Sec. 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act did not exist and therefore the search action is illegal having regard to the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and consequently the impugned assessment order ITA Nos. 995 & 996/Bang/2015 Page 2 of 12 deserves to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 92,07,500/- in respect of certain ca…

M/S Dream Logistics Company (India) Pvtt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11

ITA 995/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind, Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 153ASection 234

…as the conditions specified in terms of Sec. 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act did not exist and therefore the search action is illegal having regard to the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and consequently the impugned assessment order ITA Nos. 995 & 996/Bang/2015 Page 2 of 12 deserves to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 92,07,500/- in respect of certain ca…

M/S Hml Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s Cross Objections for Assessment Years 2002-

ITA 83/BANG/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Delta Infralogistics The Deputy Commissioner Of 2002-03 (Worldwide) Ltd., Income Tax, [Formerly Hml Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,] Central Circle, #202, Veekay Towers, Mangalore. Kulur Bangra Road, Kulur, Mangalore. Pan : Aaach 7083 B The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Delta Infralogistics 2003-04 Tax, (Worldwide) Ltd., Circle – 1(1), Mangalore. Mangalore. Pan : Aaach 7083 B C.O. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 9/Bang/2013 M/S. Delta Infralogistics The Deputy Commissioner 2003-04 (Worldwide) Ltd., Of Income Tax, (In Ita No.817/Bang/2012) Mangalore. Central Circle, Pan : Aaach 7083 B Mangalore. 10/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2004-05 (In Ita No. 818/Bang/2012) 11/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2005-06 (In Ita No.819/Bang/2012) 12/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2006-07 (In Ita No.820/Bang/2012) 13/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 (In Ita No.821/Bang/2012)

For Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Jr. to Sr. Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 153A

…y on the suspicion and therefore, the action u/s.132[1] is bad in law [224 ITR 19 (SC)] and consequent assessment U/S.153A is null and void-ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80. (iii) That the warrant issued in the joint names of the persons said to have been specified in the warrant is bad in law to initiate search in the individual cases of the several persons whose names are specified in the warrant although a joint warrant had to be issued in all the names of the occupants of the premises to seize their records, if w…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2111/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2110/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2109/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2108/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2107/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2106/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2105/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commisssioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2019/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R.Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2018/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2017/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2016/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2015/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2014/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2013/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…pted by the doctrine of non-traverse and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one ob…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Bharat Infra Tech (P)Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the issues in the Cross Objections raised have become infructuous and dismissed as such

ITA 1442/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40A(3)

…and therefore, the action under section 132[2] is bad in law [224 ITR 19 [SC] ] and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-inito on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80 and consequently the order of assessment passed under section 153C of the Act is bad in law. iii. The learned authorities below has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132[1][a], [b] & [c] of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid a…

Union of India v. Ajit Jain

What is Union of India v. Ajit Jain authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Ajit Jain

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S Dream Logistics Company (India) Pvtt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S Dream Logistics Company (India) Pvtt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S Hml Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Mangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commisssioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R.Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Bharat Infra Tech (P)Ltd, Bangalore