“ unexplained money ”

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court

581

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court

570

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court

525

107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

477

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court

427

172 ITR 250 · 1988 · Supreme Court

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

Chuharmal v. CIT

340

ITA 1045/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

Judgments citing unexplained money

Shri. B.L. Nagendra Prasad, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

addition made by the learned assessing officer under the provisions of section 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,22,58,100/- as unexplained money, on the following grounds on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and the learned assessing ... since the deposits made in the bank accounts are all from explainable and available sources and cannot partake the character of unexplained money, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] was not justified in confirming the action of the learned assessing

Hansa Girish Shah, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 3303/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. DR

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

erred in upholding the addition of Rs. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 7,54,855/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the I.T Act, 1961, on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts ... balance sheet as at 31.03.2016 balance sheet as at 31.03.2016 and that the provisions of and that the provisions of section 69A dealing with unexplained money were not attracted section 69A dealing with unexplained money were not attracted section 69A dealing with unexplained money were not attracted to the facts

Mayur Kanjibhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3243/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S.()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

been handled above by the AO. The appellant has not provided the AO with material fit enough not to treat the cash loan as unexplained money. He has not provided me with enough substance either. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order

Karan Singh Tyagi, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 5(2)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2523/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2523/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Karan Singh Tyagi Ito, C/O C.S. Anand, Advocate, Vs. Ward 5(2)(1), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10 L.S.C., Gautam Budh Nagar, Savita Vihar, New Delhi. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aeqpta708Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

bank account (which represented the sale proceeds of lands forming part of ancestral agricultural lands) ought not to have been treated as 'unexplained money in terms of section 69A'. 5. That on the peculiar facts of the case and in law, addition of Rs.44,12,000/- u/s 69A ought

Keshav Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 30/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Keshav Kumar Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6-3-1089/A/1/502, Ward-6(1), Harmony Heights, Hyderabad. Rajbhavan Road, Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan : Abqpa4260R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Aravindakshan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, SR.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

transferred to the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rs.9,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-) as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. I find that even in the appellate proceedings, assessee has not provided any supporting documentary evidence to prove

Dhamodhar Alla, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 14/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Dhamodhar Alla, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.9, Anjanapuri Ward 15(1), Colony, Nacha Bollarum, Hyderabad. Alwal, Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan : Bcspa9395M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Pawan Kumar, Ca (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R. (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Pawan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

facts of the case. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making addition of Rs.11,20,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in raising a tax demand ... could be available for depositing in the bank account and that no evidence was produced an hence, he treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained money and added back the same to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of I.T. Act and accordingly, passed assessment order

Venkata Ramireddy Kalluru, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kurnool

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 630/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkata Ramireddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kalluru, Ward-2, Kurnool. 87/1281/12-F, Somisetty Nagar, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh – 518599. Pan : Dkwpk3931F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu. Revenue By: Shri Aravindakshan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, SR.AR

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 294Section 69A

made cash deposits to an aggregate amount of Rs. 23,29,000/- and the same were remained unexplained. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and taxed u/s 115 BBE of the Act. Finally, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order

Mohammed Ashraf Ali, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 629/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammed Ashraf Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 7-5-115/F/1, Padmavathi Ward-1, Colony, Mahabubnagar Mahabubnagar. District. Telangana. Pan : Brkpa3619P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Mode). Revenue By: Shri Aravindakshna, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshna, SR.AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

furnish satisfactory/proper explanation. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act treating the cash payment of Rs.18,11,900/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee as per section 69A of the Act and chargeable to tax 60% u/s 115BBE

Naga Vara Prasad Mandala, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 599/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenaga Vara Prasad Mandala V. Acit – Central Circle – 1(1) Flat No.301 Aayakar Bhavan Kranthi Venkateswara Apartments Opp. Lb Stadium, Basheer Bagh Telangana - 500004 East Marredpalli, Telangana - 500026 Pan: Dnrpm7537R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri Shakeer Ahamed

Section 115BSection 69ASection 80C

failed to appreciate the detailed submission made during the course of assessment proceedings and has erred in considering the deposits in bank as unexplained money u/s.69A of IT Act and the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80C is invalid. 5. The Hon’ble CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer has wrongly ... assessed the amount of Cash of Rs. 13,61,000/- as unexplained money and taxed u/s. 115BBE which is not sustainable and the same need to be deleted. 6. Any other ground will be raised at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, we observe that inspite of issue

Jetender Roller Flour Mill, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 587/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejitender Roller Flour Mill V. Asst. Cit- Central Circle-3 (1) 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Madhu Mantri & Associates Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004 C-103, Mathrushree Apartments, 3-5-873, Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 500029 Pan: Aabfj99Oob (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri K.C. Devdas Department Represented By : Shri Shakeer Ahamed

Section 69A

order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Hyderabad ['Ld. CIT(A)'] in in treating the cash of Rs15,40,951 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('the Act') is unsustainable both on facts ... agents the details of which were not available on the date of search and was subsequently updated in the cash book on 07.05.018 as unexplained money on the ground that no credence can be given to such claim is unjust and arbitrary which is not permissible under law. Therefore

Hatdaluibazar Sashya Utpadan O Bikray Samabay Samity Ltd, Burdwan vs. ITO, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 447/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80P

other alternative but to add entire cash deposits of Rs. 1,50,14,000/- made in the hands of assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee

Asif Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1048/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

satisfied with the submissions of the assessee and the documents submitted and he proceeded by treating the cash deposited in the bank account as unexplained money. The ld. AO passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 17.12.2019 by adding the amount

Reena Srinivas, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 961/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

Rs.4,19,242/-. ii) The second addition is, addition of Rs.43,67,000/- being demonetized cash deposits i.e., SBNs and treated the same as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. The AO framed assessment ex-parte u/s.144A of the Act after issuing show- cause notice by post and e-mail ... with a direction to re-decide these two issues i.e., assessment of business income being cash deposit of Rs.52,40,523/- and unexplained money being demonetized cash in SBNs u/s.69A of the Act, amounting to Rs.43,67,000/-. In term of the above, we remand the matter back

Nasimbanu S Kothiya, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 622/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Nasimbanu S. Kothiya Ito, Ward-5(3)(4) 201, Paradise Park Vs Ahmedabad. Khoja Society Nr. Vemandir, Kankaria Maninagar, Ahmedabad. Pan : Bbxpk 4772 N

For Appellant: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

explain and establish the nature of cash deposited in her bank account to the said extent. The AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and levied tax at the rate of 60% thereon in accordance with the provisions of section 115BBE ... bank to the tune of Rs.8,52,500/- having not been explained by the assessee, the entire amount is liable to be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, and added to the income of the assessee. 5. The assessee went in appeal before the ld.CIT

Amikrupa Education Trust, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Final Appeal. Total Tax Effect (See Note Below) Rs. 40,90,878/-

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

upholding the Rs. 40,90,878/- addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 49,80,000/- of cash deposited in bank as unexplained money. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in invoking section 115BBE of the Act when transactions are occurred prior ... Assessing Officer after taking cognizance of the assessee’s submission made addition of Rs. 49,80,000/- u/s. 69A on account of unexplained money. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Maheswar Reddy Itikyala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Maheswar Reddy Itikyala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.102, Urdu Hall Ward 9(4), Lane, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. House No.3-6-195/B, Telangana. Pan : Aplpr0940L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Appeared For Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Sudhakar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144oSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

during the( F.Y. 2016- 17)appellant assessment year 2017-18 in the bank accounts of the appellant is treated as unexplained money U/s 69A r.w.s. 115 BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 without proper appreciation, is illegal arbitrary, without assigning any valid reasons, and is perverse, highhanded. 5) The learned ... during the F.Y. 2016-17)appellant assessment year 2017-18 in the bank accounts of the appellant is treated as unexplained money U/s 69A r.w.s. 115 BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 is illegal arbitrary, without assigning any valid reasons, and is perverse, highhanded is contrary to the provisions

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Appu Food Products, Cuddalore Chennai

ITA 667/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 663, 664 & 667/Chny/2023 & Co Nos.: 30, 31 & 32/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 &2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Appu Food Products, Tax, V. K-1, Sidco Industrial Estates, Central Circle 2(1), Vadalur, Cuddalore – 607 303. Room No. B3, Ground Floor, [Pan: Aabfa-1499-G] Investigation Building, Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. M. V. Prasad, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024

ITA 666/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

excel sheets, worked out total cash given/received from the appellant for three assessment years and made additions u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. The Assessing Officer, while computing total amount of cash transactions has appended two zeros into cash transactions appearing in seized material, i.e. excel sheet ... assessee has also filed certain additional evidences including the alleged cash transactions considered by the Assessing Officer for working out unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act for all three assessment years. During the course of appellant proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Appu Direct Pvt. Ltd., Cuddalore

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 665 & 666/Chny/2023 & Co Nos.: 37 & 38/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Appu Direct Pvt Ltd., Tax, V. S.No. 544/4A, 4B Opposite To Central Circle 2(1), National College, Kumbakonam, Room No. B3, Ground Floor, Panruti, Cuddalore – 607 103. Investigation Building, [Pan: Aawcs-9382-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. M. V. Prasad, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024

ITA 665/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

38/Chny/2023 excel sheets, worked out total cash given/received from the appellant for both assessment years and made additions u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. The Assessing Officer, while computing total amount of cash transactions has appended two zeros into cash transactions appearing in seized material, i.e. excel sheet ... assessee has also filed certain additional evidences including the alleged cash transactions considered by the Assessing Officer for working out unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act for all both assessment years. During the course of appellant proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Appu Direct Pvt. Ltd., Cuddalore

ITA 664/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Appu Food Products, Cuddalore Chennai