“gross total income”

Chapter VI - Deductions / Set-offSection 80B(5)Section 80B(5) / Rule 3D2,282 judgments

The decision most relied on for gross total income is CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State (200 Taxmann 220), cited in 348 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on gross total income

CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State

200 Taxmann 220 · 2011 · High Court

348

citing judgments

Interest earned by a Co-operative Society from investing fixed deposits in banks is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court

290

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT

343 ITR 89 · 2012 · Supreme Court

144

citing judgments

For calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, if total interest is netted off after adjusting interest paid and received, the 90% reduction specified in Explanation (baa) is not applicable.

Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (IT) & Another

299 ITR 444 · 2008 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

When computing deductions under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80IA, losses from other business undertakings must be set off against the profits of the eligible undertaking before calculating the deduction. No deduction under Section 80IA is permissible if the overall 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession' results in a loss.

CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.

286 ITR 255 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act is to be allowed only after setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses against the profits of the business.

CIT v. Williamson Financial Services

165 Taxmann 638 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Income-tax is levied on the total income of an assessee, not on gross receipts. The tax is on income, and deductions for expenditure are permissible.

CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited

127 Taxmann.com 69 · 2021 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 80-IA or 80-IB is computed by setting it off against the gross total income to arrive at the total income of an assessee.

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.

328 ITR 448 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, such as Section 80-IA, are to be calculated and allowed with reference to the assessee's gross total income, not just business income.

Judgments citing gross total income

M/S. Kotekar Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Mangaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1232/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kotekar Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, The Income Tax Officer, 5-4(5), Raitha Sadana, Ward – 2(4), Beeri, Kotekar, Mangalore. Mangalore – 575 022. Vs. Pan: Aaaak2844D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth .G.S, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 19.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Mangaluru On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect In Sl.No. Grounds Of Appeal Rs. A) The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As These Are Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S 1. Case. B) The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs.82,17,400/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.1,99,640/- Under The Facts & Circumstances

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CA

Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the Act. Hon'ble Karnataka Court distinguished the facts in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar

Section 10ASection 234CSection 72

commercial profits" and that as the income of the s. 10A unit has to be excluded at source itself before arriving at the gross total income, the question of setting off the loss of the current year's or the brought forward business loss (and unabsorbed depreciation) against

M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115JSection 80I

order to arrive at the total income of the assessee and, therefore while interpreting Section 80-I(1), which also refers to gross total income one has to read the expression gross total income as defined in Section 80B(5)." 8. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the order passed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 10/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115JSection 80I

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6309/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai

Section 132

U/S.14A 13,32,674/- 3,17,81,818/- INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS 7,82,80,920/- INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 2,46,525/- GROSS TOTAL INCOME 12,15,98,311/- LESS DEDUCTIONS U/S.CHAPTER VI-A 10,90,000/- TOTAL INCOME ROUNDED OFF U/S.288A ... Disallowance U/S.14A 5,18,699/- (-)25,12,24,850/- INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS 5,51,10,245/- INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 16,500/- GROSS TOTAL INCOME 6,93,380/- TOTAL INCOME ROUNDED OFF U/S.288A 6,93,380/- For the A.Y. 2008-09 - Computation of Income as per Assessment Order dated

Timblo Shipyards P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assesseing Officer/ National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessing Officer, National E- Timblo Shipyards Private Assessment Centre, Delhi Limited Income Tax Department, 64 Bajaj Bhavan Nariman National E-Assessment Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 021 Centre, New Delhi, Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct4852B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 156

disallowed 10% thereof for want of details. Accordingly, the total addition of ₹97,76,401/- was made. The gross total income was computed at ₹80,32,669/- and brought forward losses of ₹6,80,32,669/- was set up. Accordingly, total income of the assessee was computed

Mumbai Sez Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 7022/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7022/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mumbai Sez Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-39 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34, Mumbai Vs. P.D. Mello Road, Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg2739C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.03.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,26,507/- Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita. No.7022/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.41,02,40,470/- Claimed Under Section 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Each One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal Is Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)

Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

disallowance of expenses in view of the provisions u/s 14A r.w.r 8D was made by assessee. The gross total income of Rs.3,09,31,438/- was offered for taxation. The assessee paid the self-assessment tax of Rs.15.48 crores on 31.10.2007 i.e. the date on which the return of income

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 41Section 80

assessee. The learned authorised representative further referred to the provisions of Section 80 IB of the income tax act and stated that the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from ‗any business‘ referred to in a specified sections then subject to terms and conditions ... present case. "80-IB Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub- sections (3) to (11), (11A) and (11B) (such

Radford Global Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Radford Global Ltd., Vs Adit, Office No.704, Wellington Business Cpc, Park 1, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri Bangalore. East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400059. Pan-Aabcm5771E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

appellant has contended that the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred in determining the Gross Total Income at Rs. 47,62,390/- as against Rs.25,65,467/- per return of income and in consequently, raising a demand of Rs.11

Krishnarajapet Taluk Agri Pro Co Op Marketing Society, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

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

ITA 514/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Krishnarajapet Taluk Agri Pro Co-Op Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Marketing Society Ltd., Mysore. K. R. Pet, K. R. Pet Taluk, Mandya 571 426. Pan : Aaaak 4566 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shankar Gowda H, Fca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Shankar Gowda H, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)Section 80P(4)

storage, processing, facilitating the marketing of the commodities etc., Page 2 of 13 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned gross total income of Rs.59,37,139.00 being Profit or gains from Business or Profession amounting to Rs. 50,70,239.00, income from house property amounting ... AXIS Bank & IT Refund TOTAL 7,00,160.00 4. The assessee electronically filed the return of income on 28.10.2015 declaring gross total income of Rs.59,37,139.00 and agriculture income of Rs.2,690.00 and claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) amounting to Rs.15,03,175.00 , under section

Surender Kumar Arora, New Dellhi vs. Ward 29(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1828/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

still the assessing officer simply raised a demand of Rs.15,78,820/- by adding the amount of employee’s contribution in the Gross Total Income and disallowed the deduction to the appellant. 3. That CIT also fails to take into consideration that due to raised of demand

The Mumbai District Co-Operative Housing Federation Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3362/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Mandar Vaidya with Sh. Kalpesh TuralkarFor Respondent: Sh. T. Shankar, Sr. DR

Section 80P(2)

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society. The assessee earned gross total income of Rs. 45,97,960/- and claimed deduction of the aforesaid income u/s 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) based

Shri. P. Krishna Reddy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1945/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

assessment year is 2015-2016. 2. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2015-2016 on 26.08.2015 showing a gross total income of Rs.1.64,76,510 including inter alia income from capital gain of Rs.1,55,80,045. The assessee had claimed deduction

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

requirements emerges to be fulfilled in order to claim deduction under the section: 1. The Assessee should be an Indian Company and the gross total income of the Assessee should include profits and gains derived from any industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of article or thing. Admittedly

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Hotel Owner'S Credit Co-Operative Society, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 368/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rampriya Das CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57(2)Section 80Section 80P

business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the Act. The Hon’ble Court also distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... under Section 56 of the Act and was not 100% 10 The Secretary, Hotel Owner’s Credit Co-op Society deductible from the Gross Total Income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, is not applicable to the present Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 involved

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

submitted that from a perusal of the order of assessment, it would be seen that admittedly, return was filed by the assessee disclosing Gross total income of Rs. 5,85,071/- on which tax of Rs. 1,57,049/- was paid before filing of the return of income. He submitted

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148