penalty under section 271(1)(c) — 1,699 case laws

Ramesh Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 31(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2123/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Ramesh Chowdhury…………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 7, Padda Pukur Road, Kol – 700020. [Pan: Acspc5253B] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(4), Kolkata………...………………………......……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: S. K. Kamaluddin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Original Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs. 8,68,870/- For The A.Y. 2015-16. Further The Case Of The Appellant Was Selected For The Scrutiny & The Notice U/S. 143(2) Was Issued. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of Act After Making The Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Bills Amounting To Rs.38,35,643/-. The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of Act.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Shree Krishna Woollen Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethshree Krishna Woollen Vs. Dcit Circle 15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Mills Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020. Krishna Mills Compound, L. B.S. Marg, Bhandup West S.O, 400078, Mumbai. Pan/Gir No: Aabcs9353G (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

whether the assessee's conduct in claiming such receipt as exempt constitutes concealment of income" or "fumishing of inaccurate particulars warranting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has argued that the claim was made under a bona-fide belief that the amount represented capital receipt ... Further, the plea that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not grant immunity from the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the absence of any stay on the penalty proceedings or order and given that the additions have been

Alka Ashok Jagtap, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan

ITA 7524/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1,29,410/-, holding that the assessee had failed to substantiate her explanation and that the sustained addition justified levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 9. Against the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1 ... 1)(c) may kindly be deleted.” 10. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the levy and confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts and deserves to be deleted in toto. The AR emphasised that

Niripraj Singh Sohal, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, Ludhiana

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

ITA 6276/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 139Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

6276_DEL_2025_Niripraj Singh Sohal vs ITO Ward IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee ... that disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee ... that disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee ... that disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee ... that disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee ... that disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee ... that disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1868/PUN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)

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

addition was sustained purely on estimate basis or when the addition was made which was on a pure guess work, hence, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. The Court accordingly answered the question ... favour of the assessee, rejecting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 21. The aforesaid discussion would make us conclude, that the Assessing Officer could not have come to a conclusion of the present case attracting proceedings for levy of penalty, when the Assessing Officer had already taken

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1867/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)

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

addition was sustained purely on estimate basis or when the addition was made which was on a pure guess work, hence, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. The Court accordingly answered the question ... favour of the assessee, rejecting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 21. The aforesaid discussion would make us conclude, that the Assessing Officer could not have come to a conclusion of the present case attracting proceedings for levy of penalty, when the Assessing Officer had already taken

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1866/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)

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

addition was sustained purely on estimate basis or when the addition was made which was on a pure guess work, hence, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. The Court accordingly answered the question ... favour of the assessee, rejecting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 21. The aforesaid discussion would make us conclude, that the Assessing Officer could not have come to a conclusion of the present case attracting proceedings for levy of penalty, when the Assessing Officer had already taken

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1865/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)

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

addition was sustained purely on estimate basis or when the addition was made which was on a pure guess work, hence, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. The Court accordingly answered the question ... favour of the assessee, rejecting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 21. The aforesaid discussion would make us conclude, that the Assessing Officer could not have come to a conclusion of the present case attracting proceedings for levy of penalty, when the Assessing Officer had already taken

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1864/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)

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

addition was sustained purely on estimate basis or when the addition was made which was on a pure guess work, hence, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. The Court accordingly answered the question ... favour of the assessee, rejecting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 21. The aforesaid discussion would make us conclude, that the Assessing Officer could not have come to a conclusion of the present case attracting proceedings for levy of penalty, when the Assessing Officer had already taken

Gopal Banik, Kolkata vs. PCIT(Central), Kolkata -2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1430/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Gopal Banik…….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 20, Apc Road, Kol- 700009.. [Pan: Aegpb1186E] Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K K Khemka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(7)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held as under: “…the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Anil Kumar Jain, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the department of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2964/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Anil Kumar Jain, Central Circle-26, 4733/22, Prakash Deep Building, New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Daryaganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagpj2715D

For Appellant: Shri Prem Lamba, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passes by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eyes of law & on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld Commissioner

Brown- Forman Worldwide Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Int, Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 2329/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrichalla Nagendra Prasad & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRICHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Himani Goyal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 160/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed u/s 153A. Once the AO accepts

Himani Goyal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 159/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed u/s 153A. Once the AO accepts

“penalty under section 271(1)(c)”

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Ramesh Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 31(4), Kolkata

Shree Krishna Woollen Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

Alka Ashok Jagtap, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan

Niripraj Singh Sohal, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, Ludhiana

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

Gopal Banik, Kolkata vs. PCIT(Central), Kolkata -2, Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Anil Kumar Jain, Delhi

Brown- Forman Worldwide Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Int, Taxation, Gurgaon

Himani Goyal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

Himani Goyal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda