“beneficial owner”

International TaxDTAADTAA951 judgments

The decision most relied on for beneficial owner is Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (5 SCC 482), cited in 261 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on beneficial owner

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT

5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court

261

citing judgments

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court

215

citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.

340 ITR 14 · 2012 · High Court

202

citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in Ankitech.

PCIT v. Ambe Tradecorp Pvt. Ltd.

145 Taxmann.com 27 · 2022 · High Court

169

citing judgments

No addition under section 68 can be made for a loan if the assessee furnishes material proving the identity of the loan givers, demonstrates they are not the beneficial owner, and has repaid the loan in a subsequent year.

CIT v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

324 ITR 263 · 2010 · High Court

111

citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) is assessable only in the hands of the beneficial shareholder who receives the benefit of the loan or advance, and not in the hands of the company receiving the loan.

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT

229 ITR 444 · 1998 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a shareholder is a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) upon receipt, unaffected by subsequent repayment or adjustment.

(Refer: CIT v. C.P.Sarathy Mudaliar

83 ITR 170 · 1972 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

For the purpose of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, the term 'shareholder' refers exclusively to a registered shareholder of the company, and not a beneficial owner or non-shareholder.

CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora

342 ITR 38 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 54F cannot be restricted or denied merely because the new residential property, for which the entire consideration is paid by the assessee, is purchased in the joint names of the assessee and their spouse. The assessee is considered the actual and constructive owner of the property.

Judgments citing beneficial owner

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

services may also he tossed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law of that State, but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident of the other Contracting State the tax so charged shall not exceed

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2378/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 253

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Amreli Modh Vanik Community Property, Amreli vs. The Pr. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 360/RJT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.360/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2024-25 Amreli Modh Vanik Principal Commissioner Of Community Property बनाम Income-Tax(Exemption), Nr. Rajkamal Chowk, Amreli- /Vs. Ahmedabad, 365 601 Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Ayakar Bhawan (Vejalpur), Nr. Sacin Tower 100 Ft Road, Anandnagar Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-3800 015 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Aagta 8104 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Chander Mohan Bhati, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

58. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, this appeal

ITA 732/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)

Kishan Mali stated that he had not made any payment and that he had allowed them only to use his name, whereas the actual beneficial owners were Shri Kishan Singh and Shri Chandra Mohan Bhati, purchasers of the said plot in his name. He further stated that all expenses

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Mateshwari Bus Operation Private Limited, Ahemdabad vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2, Ahemdabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmateshwari Bus Operations Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Tds, Ward-2, U-7, Swastik House, Near Old Ahmedabad. High Court, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. [Pan :Ahmm13678 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Amit Mundhra, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Bona Fide Inter- Corporate Loan Of Rs.20,00,000/- Advanced By The Assessee To M/S Tak Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. As "Deemed Dividend" Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & In Holding The Assessee To Be An Assessee In Default Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) For Not Deducting Tax At Source Under Section 194 Of The Act. The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Transaction Was A Commercial Loan, Fully Disclosed & Subsequently Repaid By The Recipient, The Assessee Was Not The Beneficial Owner Of Shares In The Recipient Company, No Benefit Accrued To Any Shareholder Individually & The Conditions Of Section 2(22)(E) Were Not Satisfied Either In Letter Or In Spirit. The Impugned Order Is Therefore Bad In Law, Based On Presumptions & Liable To Be Quashed In Its Entirety.” Maheshwari Bus Operation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year 2015-16 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mundhra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)Section 250

Officer failed to appreciate that the transaction was a commercial loan, fully disclosed and subsequently repaid by the recipient, the assessee was not the beneficial owner of shares in the recipient company, no benefit accrued to any shareholder individually and the conditions of section 2(22)(e) were not satisfied

Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Usa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), (International Tax), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.360/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Six Continents Hotels, Inc. C/O- Bsr & Co. Llp, Dlf Building #10, 8Th Floor, Tower-B, Dlf Cyber City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aahcs-7853-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), International Taxation, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Himanshu Aggarwal & Manan Madan, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.11.2024 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order On Following Two Counts:

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Himanshu Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

global hospitality player. InterContinental Hotels Group (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd, Singapore ('IHGAP Singapore'), group entity of the Appellant is the economic and beneficial owner of certain IHG brands including 'Holiday Inn', 'Holiday Inn Express' and 'Crowne Plaza'. IHG also has a group entity in India, InterContinental Hotels Group (India) Private

Arihant Fertiliser and Chemicals India Limited, Indore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Indore

ITA 711/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

More importantly, he further observed that though there are common shareholders in both companies but the assessee-company is neither a shareholder nor a beneficial owner in Sagar Ltd. Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) is assessable only in the hands of shareholder ... child to contend the holding of the assessee was more than 10% - AO treated the dividend - HELD - The assessee should be the registered and beneficial owner of the shares- A minor child can be member of the company, if the shares are fully paid up - In the present case, assesses

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 401/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in holding the assessee as beneficial owner of lands acquired and bank accounts maintained by Sh. Ram Singh Meena arbitrarily, by ignoring the fact that Shri Ram Singh Meena is separately assessed ... Shri Ram Karan Meena R/o Village & Post-Mainpura, Tehsil & Dist Sawai Madhopur who was held as your Benamidar and assessee was held as Beneficial Owner of these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019 in terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 400/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in holding the assessee as beneficial owner of lands acquired and bank accounts maintained by Sh. Ram Singh Meena arbitrarily, by ignoring the fact that Shri Ram Singh Meena is separately assessed ... Shri Ram Karan Meena R/o Village & Post-Mainpura, Tehsil & Dist Sawai Madhopur who was held as your Benamidar and assessee was held as Beneficial Owner of these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019 in terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off as under :

ITA 399/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 153ASection 69

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 395/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 153ASection 69

U Games Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankaru Games Private Limited, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Tower 4, Central B Wing, 5 Th बनाम 13(1)(1), 225, Aaykar Floor, Nesco It Park, Nesco Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Centre, Western Express Road, Mumbai–400020, Highway, Goregaon (East), Maharashtra Mumbai –400 063, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccu7582L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Shah,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 244A

procedural requirements. 1.1.9. the primary objective of Section 199 read with Rule 37BA is to align TDS credit with the person who is the beneficial owner of the income, which is Appellant in this case. 1.1.10. that the procedure is handmaid of justice and cannot be used to hamper

Orbis Real Estate Fund I, Hyderabad (Auth. Rep.) vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2 - 2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik

Section 143(3)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद, न् याययक

Kesar Buildcon Private Limited, Banaskantha vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the PCIT and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed

ITA 790/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-2028 Kesar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit 1St Floor Shri Kesar Cold Vs. Ahmedabad-3 Storage Plot No.B-2 To 9, Rev Survey No.85/2 Paiki Near Hotel Jyoti Vil Banaskantha. Pan : Aabck 4923 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 269S

Vishakhaben Joshi, were holding 20% shares each in M/s Kesar Built Systems Pvt. Ltd. It was therefore observed that these directors were beneficial owners of shares with substantial interest in the lending company. The PCIT further recorded that the tax audit report in Form 3CD did not report this transaction ... satisfied with the explanation furnished. In the impugned order dated 30.03.2025, the PCIT held that since the directors of the assessee company were beneficial owners of shares in the lending company, the transaction of loan of Rs. 1.35 crore received by the assessee squarely fell within the definition of deemed

“beneficial owner”

Leading authorities on beneficial owner

Judgments citing beneficial owner

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Amreli Modh Vanik Community Property, Amreli vs. The Pr. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Chander Mohan Bhati, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

Mateshwari Bus Operation Private Limited, Ahemdabad vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2, Ahemdabad

Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Usa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), (International Tax), Delhi, New Delhi

Arihant Fertiliser and Chemicals India Limited, Indore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Indore

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

U Games Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

Orbis Real Estate Fund I, Hyderabad (Auth. Rep.) vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2 - 2, Hyderabad

Kesar Buildcon Private Limited, Banaskantha vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad