concealment of income — 2,901 case laws

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1453/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

inaccurate, the liability would arise In Dilip N. Shroff v. J. CIT (2007)6 SCC 329, this Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c), mens ... Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms: (i) an item of receipt

Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tisya Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

penalty had been initiated on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the final levy was imposed on the ground of concealment of income, thereby vitiating the penalty proceedings on the ground of ambiguity and lack of clarity in the charge. 2.3 Secondly, the CIT(A) held that ... under the limb of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’, whereas the record reveals that the penalty was indeed initiated and levied under the limb of ‘concealment of income’. We find merit in this submission and to this extent, the finding of the learned CIT(A) is set aside. 3.1 However

Income Tax Officier- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tisya Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

penalty had been initiated on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the final levy was imposed on the ground of concealment of income, thereby vitiating the penalty proceedings on the ground of ambiguity and lack of clarity in the charge. 2.3 Secondly, the CIT(A) held that ... under the limb of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’, whereas the record reveals that the penalty was indeed initiated and levied under the limb of ‘concealment of income’. We find merit in this submission and to this extent, the finding of the learned CIT(A) is set aside. 3.1 However

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Bhopal vs. M P State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 772/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

produce the legal provision of section 271(1)(c) which reads as under: “271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) If the Assessing Officer …….. in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person – XX (c) has concealed the particulars

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 274/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 271/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 270/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 268/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate

Rachna Goyal, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

SSSA Emerald Meadows, on the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) holding that not to tick correct limb of the notice regarding concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income, renders the notice and consequential proceedings as invalid and void, was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Amit Kumar Sen, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

270A): The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act requires clear and unambiguous 11 evidence of misreporting or concealment of income. Given the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO)'s reliance on presumptive discrepancies without any concrete evidence of deliberate misreporting or concealment, the initiation of penalty

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 747/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration ... confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction about the concealment of income and further the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty that when the quantum additions are confirmed, penalty is also

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 746/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration ... confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction about the concealment of income and further the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty that when the quantum additions are confirmed, penalty is also

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 745/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration ... confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction about the concealment of income and further the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty that when the quantum additions are confirmed, penalty is also

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 744/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration ... confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction about the concealment of income and further the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty that when the quantum additions are confirmed, penalty is also

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration ... confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction about the concealment of income and further the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty that when the quantum additions are confirmed, penalty is also

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 742/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration ... confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction about the concealment of income and further the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty that when the quantum additions are confirmed, penalty is also

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 741/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration ... confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction about the concealment of income and further the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty that when the quantum additions are confirmed, penalty is also

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 740/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration ... confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction about the concealment of income and further the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty that when the quantum additions are confirmed, penalty is also

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 739/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration ... confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction about the concealment of income and further the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty that when the quantum additions are confirmed, penalty is also

Genchi India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(va)

provisions of law that definite finding is required to be recorded by the AO for reaching to a conclusion with regard to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and without any such findings, there cannot be any question of imposition of any penalty

“concealment of income”

Leading authorities on concealment of income

Judgments citing concealment of income

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tisya Jewels, Mumbai

Income Tax Officier- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tisya Jewels, Mumbai

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Bhopal vs. M P State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Bhopal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

Rachna Goyal, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

Amit Kumar Sen, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

Genchi India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi