Commissioner (Appeals) — 4,761 case laws

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 256/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour ... surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 255/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour ... surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 254/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour ... surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 253/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour ... surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 252/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour ... surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 251/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour ... surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour

Sameer Gehlaut, London vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2532/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R

Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 28

Section 251 of the Act as it amended by Finance Act No. 2 at 2024 w.e.f. 1.10.2024 reads as under: "Powers of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] (Commissioner (Appeals)] 251 (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers- a) in an appeal against ... reads as under: "Clause 77 of the Bill seeks to amend section 251 of the Income-tax Act relating to powers of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals). Sub-section (1) of the said section provides that Commissioner (Appeals) shall have, inter alia, the powers to confirm, reduce

Amjad Usman Khan, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1973/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54

grounds: – “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['the learned Commissioner (Appeals)] erred in not adjudicating the jurisdictional grounds challenging the validity of the notice dated 31.03.201. Thus, the matter may be remanded back before ... learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the adjudication of the grounds 1 and 2 preferred in the Form 35. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned assessing officer erred in issuing the notice dated 31.03.2021 under section

Shri Kutch Visa Oswal Jain Derawasi Sangh Bidada, Mandvi vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward (1), Rajkot.

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

ITA 160/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 160/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Kutch Visa Oswal Jain Derawasi The Ito Exemption, Ward (1), Vs. Sangh Bidada, P.O. Bidada, Rajkot. New Aayakar Bhavan, Race Mandvi 370435 Course Ring Road, Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts0457L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

assessee, are as follows: 1. The order u/s 154 passed by the CPC u/s 143(1) is bad in law. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in not rectifying the mistake of CPC and in not granting deduction to the extent ... original as well as revised return of income by not considering revised Form 10 filed by the Appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and thus failed to appreciate that benefit of Sec. 11 of Rs. 9,00,000/- could

Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Avtar Singh as reported in 304 ITR 333, has held as under:- "Held, the Commissioner (Appeals), as well as the Tribunal had recorded a pure finding of fact, after considering the material available on record to the effect that notice ... which read as under: “271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1). If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the CIT in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (a) and (b)**** **** (c) has concealed the particulars

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Avtar Singh as reported in 304 ITR 333, has held as under:- "Held, the Commissioner (Appeals), as well as the Tribunal had recorded a pure finding of fact, after considering the material available on record to the effect that notice ... which read as under: “271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1). If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the CIT in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (a) and (b)**** **** (c) has concealed the particulars

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Sector-V,Salt Lake City, India, 700091 Twenty-four Parganas North, Salt Lake, West Bengal, 4. THAT I filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Sector-V,Salt Lake City, India, 700091 Twenty-four Parganas North, Salt Lake, West Bengal, 4. THAT I filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Sector-V,Salt Lake City, India, 700091 Twenty-four Parganas North, Salt Lake, West Bengal, 4. THAT I filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement

Mahendra Singh Dasana, Kandivali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 586/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 250Section 69C

explanation by assessee about source of cash deposits with supporting evidence treated entire amount as unexplained and brought same to tax under section 69A Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld said additions It was noted that perusal of bank account of assessee clearly showed that cash amount deposited by assessee was immediately ... assessee were related to its business activities associated with said two companies and they were not abnormal as compared to earlier periods However, Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined business activities of assessee He sustained additions without seeking remand report from Assessing Officer or investigating facts independently Whether, on facts, impugned

Amit Prabhunath Jaiswal, Nerul West vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2284/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailamit Prabhunath Jaiswal, Jaiswal Niwas, Plot No.253 Sector-6, Darshan Darbar Marg, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai - 400706 ............... Appellant Pan : Aibpj1635K V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 28(1)(1) ……………… Respondent Aaykar Bhavan Income Tax Office, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Assessee By : Shri Harshit Kabra, Ca (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Kabra, CA (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order

Prathamesh Graphics & Digital, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1461/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68

facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["the learned Commissioner (Appeals)] erred in confirming the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the said addition ... deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,78,169/- representing the interest paid on the unsecured loans of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section

Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)

Section Shall not Include- The amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide

Dy.CIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur vs. Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 388/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: ------- None -------

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(i)Section 274

reads as under: - “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the 98[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person

Mallelil Industries Private Limited, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 787/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

For Appellant: Shri Surendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

proceedings. The engagement of advocate and the handing over of required documents and details was done by the auditors themselves. Though the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was received on 24.08.2022 the appellant was not aware that no action was initiated by the tax auditors who usually carried out the task

“Commissioner (Appeals)”

Leading authorities on Commissioner (Appeals)

Judgments citing Commissioner (Appeals)

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce-1(2), Bangalore

Sameer Gehlaut, London vs. DCIT, Mumbai

Amjad Usman Khan, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

Shri Kutch Visa Oswal Jain Derawasi Sangh Bidada, Mandvi vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward (1), Rajkot.

Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolkata

Mahendra Singh Dasana, Kandivali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi

Amit Prabhunath Jaiswal, Nerul West vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

Prathamesh Graphics & Digital, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 21(2)(5), Mumbai

Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

Dy.CIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur vs. Arun Majeed, Thrissur

Mallelil Industries Private Limited, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Thiruvalla