penalty under section 271D — 244 judgments | BharatTax

MAHESH KENCHANAGUNDU,NANDYALA vs. ITO., WARD-1, NANDYAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1611/HYD/2025[2015-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-14

Section 115BSection 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 69

following grounds of\nappeal:\n• “The order of the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous both on\nfacts and in law.\n• That the penalty under Section 271D is not maintainable as the\nappellant accepted loans in cash from agriculturists who have\nagricultural income only and are covered under the exception ... received cash loans totaling Rs.9 lakhs from agriculturists. The Assessing Officer treated Rs.8,00,888/- as unexplained investment and made an addition. A penalty under Section 271D was also initiated for violation of Section 269SS.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable because

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

Section 275 provides the limitation for imposition of penalty under Chapter-XXI of the IT Act. Since in the case in hand, the penalty under section 271D is not imposed pursuant to any assessment-order, therefore, clause (c) of section 275(1) is relevant for the purpose of limitation ... further made a reference to the Additional CIT for levy of penalty. Thus the limitation for passing the order for levy of penalty under section 271D would reckon from the end of the October, 2015 and shall expire on 30th April, 2016 being the period of 6 months from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. KNS MEMORIAL, VIKAS KHAND-II, GOMTI NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 572/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR

Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY BOLLAPRAGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1961/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1961/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bollapragada, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abmpb7770R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/06/2022 For The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 54F

assessee vide his order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/06/2022 has not recorded any satisfaction for initiating the penalty under section 271D of the Act in the body of the assessment order, therefore, he was divested of his jurisdiction to impose the subject penalty in the hands ... based on the original assessment order dated 26.02.1996, issued a “Show cause notice” (“SCN”) to the assessee and imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act dated 23.09.1996. It was, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the sustainability of the penalty imposed under Section 271D

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2172/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

case of Pr. CIT vs. K. Umesh Shetty (Supra). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had considered an identical issue of levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act, in light of limitation provided under section 275 (1)(c) of the Act and after considering the relevant facts ... levied by the A.O under section 271DA of the Act on merits for A.Ys 2018-19 to 2021-22. The A.O levied the penalty under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269ST of the Act on the ground that the assessee has received cash in excess

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the\nΑ

ITA 2171/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos 2164 2165 2171 and 2172 MSN Laboratories P Ltd\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ\nIN THE

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2165/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

case of Pr. CIT vs. K. Umesh Shetty (Supra). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had considered an identical issue of levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act, in light of limitation provided under section 275 (1)(c) of the Act and after considering the relevant facts ... levied by the A.O under section 271DA of the Act on merits for A.Ys 2018-19 to 2021-22. The A.O levied the penalty under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269ST of the Act on the ground that the assessee has received cash in excess

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

ITA 2164/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos 2164 2165 2171 and 2172 MSN Laboratories P Ltd\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ\nIN THE

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Assessing officer is not required to\nrecord his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore,\nrespondent No.1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act.\n25.\nWe are afraid respondent No.1 had completely overlooked the decision\nof the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills ... section 269SS.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned considering the pandemic and other reasons. Regarding the penalty under section 271D, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not recorded the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, which is a mandatory condition. Furthermore

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Assessing officer is not required to\nrecord his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore,\nrespondent No.1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act.\n25.\nWe are afraid respondent No.1 had completely overlooked the decision\nof the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills ... Form 10B, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted condonation and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the exemption claim. Regarding the penalty under Section 271D, the Tribunal found it unsustainable due to the absence of a recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and the initiation of penalty proceedings

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 973/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Assessing officer is not required to\nrecord his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore,\nrespondent No.1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act.\n25.\nWe are afraid respondent No.1 had completely overlooked the decision\nof the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills ... 271E", "275(1)(c)", "273B" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the audit report (Form 10B) was condonable, and whether the penalty under Section 271D was validly imposed due to lack of AO's satisfaction and limitation

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

ITA 972/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Assessing officer is not required to\nrecord his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore,\nrespondent No.1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act.\n25.\nWe are afraid respondent No.1 had completely overlooked the decision\nof the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills

AMSELOR COMMODITY TRADE LLP,DURGAPUR vs. A.O., WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR

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

ITA 2846/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Prasenjeet Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anup Biswas, DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

survey was conducted at the assessee's premises, leading to the reopening of the case and assessment of income. The AO imposed penalties under Section 271D for cash introductions and Section 271E for cash withdrawals, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).", "held": "The Tribunal held that Section 269SS ... penalties levied under Section 271D and 271E were not sustainable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271D", "269SS", "133A", "147", "148", "271E", "269T" ], "issues": "Whether the penalty under Section 271D for cash introductions and Section 271E for cash withdrawals are leviable when the transactions relate to capital contributions and withdrawals by partners

BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 54E

considering and/or appreciating the bona fide explanation offered by the Appellant by the online reply filed and thereby grossly erred in confirming the penalty under section 271D of the Act. Bommarabettu Madhusudhana Acharya, Bengaluru Page 2 of 13 3. Without prejudice, the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty ought ... Bengaluru Page 12 of 13 existence of which has to be established by the assessee, is the sine qua non. 9.7. Levy of penalty under section 271D is not automatic. Before levying penalty, that concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1617/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nSri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nDr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

Assessing officer is not\nrequired to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing.\nTherefore, respondent No.1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act.\n25. We are afraid respondent No.1 had completely overlooked the\ndecision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills ... immovable property and received a significant portion of the sale consideration in cash. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) levied a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for violating Section 269SS, which prohibits accepting cash for property transactions above a certain threshold. The assessees challenged this

PREMJI BHURLAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RANG 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & SatishFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

prove that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 273(b), the Assessee has rendered itself liable to penalty under Section 271D of the Act, for violating the provisions of 269SS of the Act. 4 Premji Bhurlal Gala 10. The Assessing Officer thus ultimately ... being satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271D, levied a penalty of Rs. 64,25,000/- under such section. 11. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said penalty being imposed by the Assessing Officer vide penalty order dated 26.09.2022 by filing the first

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 DELHI, DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4679/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

repaid loans and advances from various entities not in the prescribed manner, violating Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A penalty under Section 271D was levied on the assessee amounting to Rs. 1735,27,79,257/-. The assessee appealed the penalty to the CIT(A), who deleted

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

“penalty under section 271D”

MAHESH KENCHANAGUNDU,NANDYALA vs. ITO., WARD-1, NANDYAL

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. KNS MEMORIAL, VIKAS KHAND-II, GOMTI NAGAR

VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY BOLLAPRAGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2 , HYDERABAD

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

AMSELOR COMMODITY TRADE LLP,DURGAPUR vs. A.O., WARD - 1(1), DURGAPUR

BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

PREMJI BHURLAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RANG 24(1), MUMBAI

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 DELHI, DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD