← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)(a)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)(i)104 judgments

PRAMOD KUMAR TAYAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) MEERUT, MEERUT

Appeal is allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

lower authorities have restricted his\nsection 10(10AA) leave encashment claim of Rs.8,20,020/- to Rs.3\nlakhs only, in the course of section 143(1) intimation dated\n29.11.2021 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. It is in\nthis factual backdrop that the assessee's first and foremost\nargument ... before us is such a course of action disallowing section\n10(10AA) leave encashment exemption is nowhere permissible in\nan instance involving section 143(1)(a)(i) & (ii) of the Act. A perusal\nof the above statutory provision indicates that the same gets\nattracted in a case of an arithmetical

BILATIBARI TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD.,,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, , JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Bilatibari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant N S Road, Islampur Bazar, Po & Ps. Islampur, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur, W.B-733202. [Pan: Aabcb9014B] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Jalpaiguri.…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajib Mukherjee & Sujit Basu, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 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 2013–14. 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal That The A.O/Cpc Erred In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.1,62,31,155/- In The Return Of The Assessee By Way Of Adjustment U/S 143(1)(A)(Ii).

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 250

been adjusted by the CPC u/s 143(1), although there was no arithmetical error in the return filed by the assessee u/s section 143(1)(a)(i). We further find that the A.O/CPC has acted beyond jurisdiction to calculate the total income of the assessee and addition has been made

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

ITA 499/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

said scrutiny assessment, under section 143 (3) of the Act, the assessing officer, by mistake, copy paste the income processed under section 143(1) by CPC(Central Processing Unit) u/s.143(1) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2021), hence, it is a mistake apparent from record, which needs correction. Therefore ... such typographical mistake may be corrected by this Tribunal. Since, later on, the order passed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act, has merged with scrutiny assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 19.09.2022, therefore, Ld. Counsel

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

ITA 498/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

said scrutiny assessment, under section 143\n(3) of the Act, the assessing officer, by mistake, copy paste the income\nprocessed under section 143(1) by CPC(Central Processing Unit) u/s.143(1) of\nthe Act vide order dated 31.03.2021), hence, it is a mistake apparent from\nrecord, which needs correction ... nsuch typographical mistake may be corrected by this Tribunal. Since, later on,\nthe order passed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act, has merged with\nscrutiny assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3)\nof the Act, dated 19.09.2022, therefore, Ld. Counsel

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 436/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B

Also, as observed by the AO the return of income filed by the assessee company was thereafter processed vide an intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, dated 30.11.2022, wherein after making 6 HighRadius Technologies Private Limited an addition of Rs. 13,13,770/- under Section

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

ITA 162/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 68

circumstances of the case, the additions/disallowances made by CPC are upheld by Ld. CIT(A) are without jurisdiction and beyond the purview of section 143(1), being debatable. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to above ... 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is a limitation on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to commence proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 5. Even otherwise, the view taken by the Gujarat High Court seems to be correct on principle. There

UOH STAFF COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 468/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri. Sai Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

issued by the A.O. 3 UOH Staff Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad. 3. Thereafter, the A.O., CPC/Bengaluru, vide an Intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 23.12.2021, declined the assessee’s entire claim for deduction under Section ... deduction under Section 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 47,41,241/- by the A.O., CPC/Bengaluru, vide his Intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 23.12.2021. We say so, for the reason that as the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 23.12.2021, was issued

TRISITA ENGINEERING LLP,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2040/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 40

adjustment/disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000 which is not permissible as it is not covered by any of the situations mentioned in Section 143(1)(a)(i) to 143(1)(a)(vi) resulting in an adjustment which is ultra vires. 6. That under the facts and circumstances of the case ... upholding the adjustment/disallowance made by the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru not permissible being outside the purview of Section 143(1)(a)(i) to 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That under the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 80I

DCTT [2019] 107\ntaxmann.com 213 (Kolkata - Trib.)\nc.\nDCIT v. Kamdhenu Builders and Developers [ITA No.\n7010/Mum/2010 (Mumbai - Trib.)]\n\n•\nScope of Section 143(1) of the Act\n\n20.\nWith regards to the case at hand, it is further\nsubmitted that the variations sought to be made ... nintimation issued under Section 143(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the\nAct are beyond the scope of the said provisions. It is\nhumbly submitted that the additions/disallowances which\ncan be made in under Section 143(1) of the Act are very\nrestricted in nature wherein the additions are restricted

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6160/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

Income filed by the appellant.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the adjustment made by the AO-CPC under section 143(1) of the Act while processing the return of income. ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 3 The brief facts of the case ... declaring a total income of Rs.5,607/- The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 25.11.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO–CPC computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,00,000, after making the following adjustments under section 143

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6159/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

Income filed by the appellant.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the adjustment made by the AO-CPC under section 143(1) of the Act while processing the return of income. ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 3 The brief facts of the case ... declaring a total income of Rs.5,607/- The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 25.11.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO–CPC computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,00,000, after making the following adjustments under section 143

RUNWAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,SION EAST vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6915/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhrirunwal Enterprises Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Cc-4(1), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Runwal & बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Omkar Square, Off Eastern Mumbai-400051 Highway, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicp4839P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep RawalFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40A(7)Section 43B

under section 143(2) has been issued and matter is in process under sub- section (2), then to change course and resort to section 143(1)(a)(i) would be against principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company

SHREE VARDHMAN STANAKVASI JAIN SHRAVAK TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1881/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

income filed by the assessee, the aforesaid amount was disclosed as corpus donation only. However, the CPC, by way of adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act, treated this amount as income of the assessee and subjected the same to tax in the hands of the assessee ... assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and took various contentions. The assessee submitted that CPC acted beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act by treating such corpus donation as voluntary donation and subjecting the same to tax in the hands of the assessee. The assessee submitted

JAGDISH CHANDRA CHATURVEDI,KASGANJ vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4(3)(3), KASGANJ , KASGANJ

Appeal is allowed

ITA 385/AGR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2022-23
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

have restricted the assessee's section 10(10AA)\nleave encashment claim of Rs.13,55,054/- to Rs.3 lakhs only, in\nthe course of section 143(1) intimation dated 01.02.2023 and\nupheld in the lower appellate discussion. It is in this factual\nbackdrop that the assessee's first and foremost argument ... before us\nis such a course of action disallowing section 10(10AA) leave\nencashment exemption is nowhere permissible in an instance\ninvolving section 143(1)(a)(i) & (ii) of the Act. A perusal of the above\nstatutory provision indicates that the same gets attracted in a case\nof an arithmetical

PRUKALPA SANKAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(5), BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2100/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh K & Devashish JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

filing of Form 67. The AR highlighted that Form . ITA No.2099 & 2100/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 6 67 was filed before the intimation under Section 143(1), dated 08/06/2020. 6.1 The ld. AR further argued that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore entitles the assessee ... argued that the claim of FTC based on Form 67 is a debatable issue, which cannot be made subject to adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities. However, the DR submitted that

PRUKALPA SANKAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(5), BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2099/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh K & Devashish JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

filing of Form 67. The AR highlighted that Form . ITA No.2099 & 2100/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 6 67 was filed before the intimation under Section 143(1), dated 08/06/2020. 6.1 The ld. AR further argued that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore entitles the assessee ... argued that the claim of FTC based on Form 67 is a debatable issue, which cannot be made subject to adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities. However, the DR submitted that

NICHINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY NICHINO CHEMICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NOW MERGED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 366/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.366/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nichino India Private Dcit / Acit Limited (Formerly Nichino Vs. Circle-5(1) Chemical India Private Hyderabad Limited, Now Merged) Hyderabad [Pan : Aaecn5394B] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ms.Suvibha Nolkha, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri D.Praveen, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25/09/2024

For Appellant: Ms.Suvibha Nolkha, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Praveen, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 154

Assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 13/02/2021, declaring a loss of Rs.3,93,94,677/-. Intimation under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was served on the assessee on 19/11/2021, determining the loss at Rs.2,65,54,308/-. Subsequently ... 09/11/2023, determining the loss at Rs.85,01,308/-. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order dated 06/12/2023 under section 143(1) of the Act with a delay, stating that considering the changes in the Income Tax portal and the assessment proceedings were already initiated

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2756/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh ('CIT(A)'), under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), disposing of appeal against intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 9 March 2021. The following grounds of appeal are alternate and without prejudice to one another: 1. Ground No 1 ... Validity of the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act 1.1 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the validity of intimation order dated 9 March 2021 passed by the Central Processing Centre ('CPC') under section

E2594 VADAKAILASAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PANRUTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed’

ITA 1276/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1276 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020)

For Appellant: Shri. V. Meenakshi Sundar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

Commissioner 0 (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is bad in law in as much it upheld the Intimation issued by CPC under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, which then was not empowered to make such adjustments, failing to appreciate that the enabling provisions allowing specified adjustment ... said return, disallowed the entire claim of deduction of Rs.31,69,049/- claimed under Section 80P of the Act in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act on 24.12.2020 on the ground that the assessee’s claim is not admissible as the return of income was filed belatedly

NISHA BHATTACHARYYA,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 121/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

read as under:- 1 Nisha Bhattacharyya (1) For that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the CPC/Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a)/154 of the Act and his purported findings in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse. (2) For that the CIT(A) failed ... consider that the CPC/Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs.14.08,035/- under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). (3) For that the CIT(A) failed to consider that whether the said expenditure of Rs.14,08,035/- is allowable or not is a debatable

Showing 1–20 of 104 · Page 1 of 6