levy of penalty — 5,057 case laws

Fancy Diamonds India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. N F Ass C / DCIT-5(1)(1) (Current Juridiction), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 728/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sfancy Diamonds India Nfassc/Dcit-5(1)(1), Pvt.Ltd., 52, Sidhpura Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Industrial Estate, 2Nd M.K.Road, Vs. Floor, Gaik Wadi, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Goregaon, Mumbai-400062. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf3325J (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Smt.Vranda U Matkarni.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld.Cit Erred In Confirming Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Fancy Diamonds India Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Vranda U Matkarni.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 41(1)

raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT erred in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 272A(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Fancy Diamonds India Pvt.Ltd. 2. Appellant craves leave to add further ... grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and the findings of the AO but has confirmed the action of the AO in levying the penalty and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal. 5.At

Sh. Arashpreet Singh. S/O.Late.Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax .Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Cercle- II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Sh. Arspreet Singh . S/O. Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle .II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Shri Mukatsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Mukatsar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Late. Sh. Gurmail. Singh. S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Mukatsar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh.S/O. Late Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 57/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Late. Sh. Gurmail. Singh S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Shri Mukat Sar vs. Dy. Commissioner of 9Income Tax. Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 56/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Late. Sh. Gumail Singh . S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

clear concealment. In the present case, it was an admitted concealment which the appellant did not disclose till reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section ... distinguished on peculiar facts of the instant case. 37. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and thus, delete the levy

Sahakari Karya Sanstha, Indore vs. The ITO, Indore

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

ITA 81/IND/2023[2018-1*9]Status: HeardITAT Indore25 May 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisahakari Karya Sanstha Ito 89, Nagar Nigam Road Indore Shakari Karya Sansthan Vs. Shiksha Vibhag, Indore

Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

this case, the grounds of appeal made during the course of the appellate proceedings. The ground raised by the appellant relates to the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 272A (1)(d), on account of non-compliance by the appellant, the appellant had committed default within the purview

Shri Radheyshyam Bisani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 288/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

obtained the audit report, therefore penalty under Section 271B of the Act is attracted. 3. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice before levying of penalty. The assessee filed his reply and contended that the turnover is not a business turnover and no penalty under Section 271B ... case constitute a reason- able cause for failure of the assessee to comply with the provisions of section 44AB so as to avoid levy of penalty by invoking section 273B which in terms provide that failure to comply with section 44AB for a reasonable cause, the penalty leviable for such

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO Ward 1, Sikar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are exactly identical except the difference in the amount of levy of penalty in other assessment year. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sikar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are exactly identical except the difference in the amount of levy of penalty in other assessment year. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore

Saltwater Studio LLP, Mum vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम / Saltwater Studio Llp Nfac, Delhi 103, Corporate Corner, F Block, Northe Block, Vs. Sunder Nagar, Near Dalmia New Delhi-110001 College, Malad (West) Mumbai-400 064 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ackfs1653D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil K. Das(Sr. AR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270A

under-reported income. According to the Ld. AR therefore its gives discretion to the AO to levy penalty or not to levy the penalty in as much as the Parliament has not used ‘shall’; and by using the 10 AY 2017-18 Saltwater Studio LLP word ‘may’ in sub-section ... section 270A of the Act, its conveys the intention of the Parliament that levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not mandatory. Having said that, the Ld. AR Shri. Dhaval Shah enlightened us about the scheme/arrangement of the provision of section 270A of the Act which is summarized

Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

erred in passing the impugned order dated 24.01.2023 ex-parte in gross violation of principles of Natural Justice and without adjudication the levy of penalty on merits. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the penalty ... notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings. Considering the facts on record and the grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty by holding that – “5. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this

M/S Ramnarain and Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

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

circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Leaned Assessing Officer in levying a penalty without specifying the limb whether it is 2 ITA 347/Mum/2023 M/s Ramanarain And Company for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ... circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld.Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs.2,15,053/- u/s 271(1)(c) for Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case

Yogendra Khandelwal, Near Sindhi Camp vs. Assistant Commissioner -3, Jaipur

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

ITA 55/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

case, penalty order and decision of the Tribunal, I am satisfied that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and AO was justified in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)( c) . Accordingly, levy of penalty to the extent relatable to disallowance of commission is upheld and appeal of the assessee

M/S. Iqbal Memorial Trust, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer ( TDS), Srinagar

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

ITA 68/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 12ASection 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)(a)Section 200A(1)(b)Section 234E

however, we hold that there is no jurisdiction of jurisdictional High Court in favour of the appellant and hence he has confirmed the levy of penalty. The relevant para of the ITAT Amritsar order in the case of Sibia Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (TDS) is reproduced hereunder

“levy of penalty”

Leading authorities on levy of penalty

Judgments citing levy of penalty

Fancy Diamonds India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. N F Ass C / DCIT-5(1)(1) (Current Juridiction), Mumbai

Sh. Arashpreet Singh. S/O.Late.Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax .Circle-II, Bathinda

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Cercle- II, Bathinda

Sh. Arspreet Singh . S/O. Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle .II, Bathinda

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Shri Mukatsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Mukatsar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Late. Sh. Gurmail. Singh. S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Mukatsar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh.S/O. Late Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Late. Sh. Gurmail. Singh S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Shri Mukat Sar vs. Dy. Commissioner of 9Income Tax. Circle -II, Bathinda

Late. Sh. Gumail Singh . S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Sahakari Karya Sanstha, Indore vs. The ITO, Indore

Shri Radheyshyam Bisani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO Ward 1, Sikar

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sikar

Saltwater Studio LLP, Mum vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-11(1)(1), Mumbai

M/S Ramnarain and Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-17(3), Mumbai

Yogendra Khandelwal, Near Sindhi Camp vs. Assistant Commissioner -3, Jaipur

M/S. Iqbal Memorial Trust, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer ( TDS), Srinagar