furnishing inaccurate particulars — 2,073 case laws

Jitendra Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the quantum appeal (ITA No

ITA 1108/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

noticed that AO passed penalty order dated 21-06-2019 by holding that the assessee failed to furnish the return and thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, he held him liable for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act and accordingly imposed penalty

Jitendra Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the quantum appeal (ITA No

ITA 1107/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

noticed that AO passed penalty order dated 21-06-2019 by holding that the assessee failed to furnish the return and thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, he held him liable for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act and accordingly imposed penalty

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee would have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before ... instant case levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the project under consideration which was not completed within the stipulated period

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1636/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee would have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before ... instant case levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the project under consideration which was not completed within the stipulated period

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee would have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before ... instant case levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the project under consideration which was not completed within the stipulated period

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee would have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before ... instant case levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the project under consideration which was not completed within the stipulated period

Ismail Abdulaziz Lakhani, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the same were transferred through registered broker, on the floor of the recognized stock exchange, after suffering Security Transaction Tax and ultimately settled through proper banking channel) as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,51,12,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sarju Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

back towards her taxable income under section 68 of the act. In view of the above I am satisfied that the asessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of her income therefore Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. Referring to the above

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). the CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal ... case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld in sustaining the addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). the CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal ... case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld in sustaining the addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). the CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal ... case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld in sustaining the addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). the CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal ... case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld in sustaining the addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty

Pradeep Kumar Jhamumal Jethani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

ITA 3910/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrimr. Pradeep Kumar V/S. Commissioner Of Jhamulal Jethani Income Tax (Appeals) 203, Quantum Park Chs National Faceless Ltd, Appeal Centre (Nfac), Union Park, Khar Gulab Delhi Nagar, Dcit Circle 23(1) Opp. Olive Restaurant, Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Khar (West), Pavel, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapj8162G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. M SubramnaimFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (SR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal was, however, dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, since it had failed to produce credible and verifiable evidence in support ... estimation of profit element related to these purchases has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income deserves to be also upheld. 6. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the judicial

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5674/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: None

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act even though assessee furnished inaccurate particulars c: income., and did not submit any new facts/material to substantiate its claim for non-levy of penalty ?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... possible, then on such issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by charging the assessee with the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3 Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited 5.2. For giving the above finding, we draw force from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5673/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: None

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act even though assessee furnished inaccurate particulars c: income., and did not submit any new facts/material to substantiate its claim for non-levy of penalty ?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... possible, then on such issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by charging the assessee with the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3 Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited 5.2. For giving the above finding, we draw force from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 959/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Taking up appeal pertaining to penalty levied in ITA No.959/Ahd/2025, the penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for having furnished inaccurate particulars on income / concealed particulars of income relevant to addition made on account of cash found deposited in her bank account during the year. Since ... assessee’s appeal in ITA No.958/Ahd/2025, therefore, there remains no basis at all for levying any penalty on the assessee for concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty so ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu Panikar vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 5 – levied amounting to Rs.2

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 958/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Taking up appeal pertaining to penalty levied in ITA No.959/Ahd/2025, the penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for having furnished inaccurate particulars on income / concealed particulars of income relevant to addition made on account of cash found deposited in her bank account during the year. Since ... assessee’s appeal in ITA No.958/Ahd/2025, therefore, there remains no basis at all for levying any penalty on the assessee for concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty so ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu Panikar vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 5 – levied amounting to Rs.2

Dilip Bhagwan Sasar, Pune vs. Asst.Commssioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

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

ITA 1768/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

making 2 addition of Rs.64,19,760/- towards business income on account of difference in valuation of immovable property. Since the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.64,19,760/- the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In absence ... figure of valuation of property at Rs.95,78,167/-. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the penalty proceedings, the AO provided opportunities of being heard to the appellant which were not availed of by the appellant

Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

levy of penalty would lead to injustice to the honest taxpayers. Accordingly minimum penalty of Rs.25,29,788 was levied for deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 21.2.2023. The assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred an appeal before ... mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. 10. It was tried to be suggested that Section

Arti Shailen Topiwala, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra East

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4384/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

been initiated penalty has been initiated i.e whether the assessee has concealed i.e whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate p the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate p income and therefore, the penalty levied ... furnishing proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. inaccurate particulars of income. The appeal against said order was The appeal against said order was to be filed within 30 days

Arti Shailen Topiwala, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra East

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4383/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

been initiated penalty has been initiated i.e whether the assessee has concealed i.e whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate p the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate p income and therefore, the penalty levied ... furnishing proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. inaccurate particulars of income. The appeal against said order was The appeal against said order was to be filed within 30 days

“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

Leading authorities on furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing furnishing inaccurate particulars

Jitendra Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

Jitendra Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

Ismail Abdulaziz Lakhani, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

Pradeep Kumar Jhamumal Jethani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

Dilip Bhagwan Sasar, Pune vs. Asst.Commssioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

Arti Shailen Topiwala, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra East

Arti Shailen Topiwala, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra East