disallowance u/s 14A — 2,938 judgments | BharatTax

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1254/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

Appellate Order by Ld. CIT(A) Appeal dismissed confirming the disallowance made u/s 14A 30/03/2021 Notice issued u/s 148 of the Act to disallow u/s. 14A- Average value of investment @ 0.5% which is short deducted by Rs.25,40,345/- 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment orders, assessee filed appeals before ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the action of the learned A.O. of reopening the case to increase disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. BD of the Act merely due to a change in opinion, despite the appellant having fully disclosed all material facts and information during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1249/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

Appellate Order by Ld. CIT(A) Appeal dismissed confirming the disallowance made u/s 14A 30/03/2021 Notice issued u/s 148 of the Act to disallow u/s. 14A- Average value of investment @ 0.5% which is short deducted by Rs.25,40,345/- 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment orders, assessee filed appeals before ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the action of the learned A.O. of reopening the case to increase disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. BD of the Act merely due to a change in opinion, despite the appellant having fully disclosed all material facts and information during

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1166/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

Appellate Order by Ld. CIT(A) Appeal dismissed confirming the disallowance made u/s 14A 30/03/2021 Notice issued u/s 148 of the Act to disallow u/s. 14A- Average value of investment @ 0.5% which is short deducted by Rs.25,40,345/- 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment orders, assessee filed appeals before ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the action of the learned A.O. of reopening the case to increase disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. BD of the Act merely due to a change in opinion, despite the appellant having fully disclosed all material facts and information during

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1165/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

Appellate Order by Ld. CIT(A) Appeal dismissed confirming the disallowance made u/s 14A 30/03/2021 Notice issued u/s 148 of the Act to disallow u/s. 14A- Average value of investment @ 0.5% which is short deducted by Rs.25,40,345/- 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment orders, assessee filed appeals before ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the action of the learned A.O. of reopening the case to increase disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. BD of the Act merely due to a change in opinion, despite the appellant having fully disclosed all material facts and information during

THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5274/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm\Nand\Nms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am\N\Nita No.5274/Mum/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\Nm/S. The Bombay Dyeing And\Nmanufacturing Company Limited,\Nneville House, Jn Heredia Marg,\Nballard Estate,\Nmumbai - 400 001\Npan: Aaact2328K\Nvs.\Nnational Faceless Appeal Centre,\Ndelhi (Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1),\Nmumbai - 400001\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Yogesh Thar, A.R.\Nms. Sukanya Jairam, A.R &\Nshri Saurabh Surana, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nshri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N22.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N18.03.2025\Norder\Nper Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:\Nthis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned\Ncommissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. Cit(A)' For Short], National Faceless\Nappeal Centre (‘Nfac' For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'),\Npertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' For Short) 2018-19.\N2.\Nthe Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N“1. Ground No. 1: Disallowance Of Rs. 4,65,28,171/- Under Section 14A Of The\Nact:\N1.

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 43C

perusal of the said Rules the expression “value of investment” cannot be\ninterpreted as “fair market value” for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.\n8D. At the outset, it is observed that Rule 8D in itself is a self-contained computational\nmechanism prescribing the method for determining

RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUBMAI

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

ITA 3751/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Reliance Industrial Principal Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Limited, Tax – 3, 5Th Floor, Nkm International House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 178 Backbay Reclamation Marine Maharshi Karve Road, Lines Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aaacr7637P (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

MEGHALAYA ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED GPF TRUST,LUMJINGSHAI ,EAST KHASI HILLS vs. ACIT-CIRCLE, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 240/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP\nAND\nSHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 14A

that the assessee has claimed the expenditure towards accrued interest on G.P.F. subscriptions at Rs.6,91,33,739/-. Ld. AO firstly computed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.3,67,13,164/- and thereafter, while dealing with the interest expenditure came to a conclusion that the said expenditures ... direct nexus to income at Rs.3,24,20,575/-. When the issue came before Id. CIT(A), he, on one hand, reduced the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of the exempt income but enhanced the interest disallowance to Rs.6,42,82,320/-. The basis of disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

investment for the financial year 2015-16 2016-17 is Rs.208,03,64,000/- & Rs.352,65,48,000/- respectively.\nThe calculation of disallowance u/s 14A is as under:\nMonth\nOpening Investment\n(In Rs.)\nClosing Investment\n(In Rs.)\nAverage Investment\n(In Rs.)\nApril, 2016\n208 ... cannot be accepted.\n11. 18. In view of above discussion, the matter is restored back to the file of AO for recomputing the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of above observations. Thus, revenue's appeal is dismissed and assessee's cross-objection, on the issue in question, stand allowed

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

investment for the\nfinancial year 2015-16 2016-17 is Rs.208,03,64,000/- & Rs.352,65,48,000/- respectively.\nThe calculation of disallowance u/s 14A is as under:\nMonth\nOpening Investment\n(In Rs.)\nClosing Investment\n(In Rs.)\nAverage Investment\n(In Rs.)\nApril, 2016\n208 ... cannot be accepted.\n11. 18. In view of above discussion, the matter is restored back to the file of AO\nfor recomputing the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of above observations.\nThus, revenue's appeal is dismissed and assessee's cross-objection, on the\nissue in question, stand allowed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SATYAM REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 6283/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadishdcit Cc-5(4), Mumbai Vs Satyam Realtors Private Ltd. Room No.436, 4Th Floor, Room No.4, 3Rd Floor Capri, Anant Kautilya Bhawan, Bandrakurla Kanekar Marg Bandra (East) Complex, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051 Pan:Aaccs7290P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None, Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Revenue Was Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-53, Mumbai [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 24.09.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250Section 43B

Income Tax rules by holding that investment which yielded exempt income are only to be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2) and to exclude such investment which did not earn exempt income from the total investment for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s 14A ... thereby ignoring clarificatory Explanation of disallowance u/s. 14A(1) inserted vide the Finance Act 2022 that the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied even in a case when exempt income has not accrued or arises or has not been received during

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

amounting to Rs.6,49,073/- ; (iv) prior period expenses amounting ; (iv) prior period expenses amounting to Rs.46,08,954/- and (vi) disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and (vi) disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and (vi) disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.1,55,05,320/ amounting ... Revenue are inter connected and are in 4 of the appeal of the Revenue are inter connected and are in relation to disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income owance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income owance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income-tax Rules

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

amounting to Rs.6,49,073/- ; (iv) prior period expenses amounting ; (iv) prior period expenses amounting to Rs.46,08,954/- and (vi) disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and (vi) disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and (vi) disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.1,55,05,320/ amounting ... Revenue are inter connected and are in 4 of the appeal of the Revenue are inter connected and are in relation to disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income owance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income owance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income-tax Rules

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is\ndismissed whereas appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly\nallowed and appeal for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

employee's contribution to provident fund\namounting to Rs.6,49,073/- ; (iv) prior period expenses amounting\nto Rs.46,08,954/- and (vi) disallowance u/s 14A of the Act\namounting to Rs.1,55,05,320/- etc.\n4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of\nthe assessee ... appeal of the assessee and ground No.\n4 of the appeal of the Revenue are inter connected and are in\nrelation to disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income-tax Rules,\n1962 (in short ‘the Rules').\n5.1 Brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that the Assessee\nreported

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the assessing officer to not add the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act without appreciating the fact that clause (f) of explanation 1 to 115JB which provide ... circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. ClT(A) erred in directing the assessing officer to not add the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act without appreciating the fact that clause (f) of explanation 1 to 115JB which provide

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the assessing officer to not add the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act without appreciating the fact that clause (f) of explanation 1 to 115JB which provide ... circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. ClT(A) erred in directing the assessing officer to not add the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act without appreciating the fact that clause (f) of explanation 1 to 115JB which provide

HCL TRAINING & STAFFING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEHRU PLACE vs. CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, I P ESTATE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7383/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Senior DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

vide order dated 05.11.2019 at assessed income of Rs. 50,27,86,300/- after making addition of Rs.60,06,137l- on account of disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D. The appellant proceeded to file an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority qua invocation of section 14A

NOWROSJEE WADIA AND SONS LTD (SUCESSOR TO SUNFLOWER INVESTMENT AND TEXTILES PVT LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 189/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Ltd., Ito, Ward-2(3)(2), (Being Successor To Sunflower Mumbai. Investments & Textiles Pvt. Ltd), Vs. 4Th Floor, Neville House, J.N. Heredia Marg, Balard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan : Aaacn1836A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Chaitanya Joshi For Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 14A

Rules, 1962 („the Rules‟) and thereafter, considering the submissions filed by the assessee, but not finding the same acceptable, the AO worked out disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 38,26,807/- and after allowing adjustment of suo moto disallowance done by the assessee ... been debited and out of the said expenditure, expenditure towards stamp duty, expenses relating to ROC fees and suo moto disallowance u/s. 14A comes to Rs. 31,24,592/- which has not been claimed by the assessee for income tax purposes and, therefore, the expenses claimed by the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PVR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue's appeals in ITA No

ITA 4071/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

clarificatory in nature.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.21,77,373/-\nmade by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of computation u/s\n115JB.\n6. The Appellant craves to add, modify ... deleted the entire addition based on judicial\nprecedents and held that that since there is no investments yielding\nexempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. It is submitted\nthat this is a covered issue in favour of assessee by the consolidated\norder of the ITAT

ODEAN SHRINE MULTIPLEX PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue's appeals in ITA No

ITA 3844/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

clarificatory in nature.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.21,77,373/-\nmade by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of computation u/s\n115JB.\n6. The Appellant craves to add, modify ... deleted the entire addition based on judicial\nprecedents and held that that since there is no investments yielding\nexempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. It is submitted\nthat this is a covered issue in favour of assessee by the consolidated\norder of the ITAT

PVR LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue's appeals in ITA No

ITA 3842/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

clarificatory in nature.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.21,77,373/-\nmade by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of computation u/s\n115JB.\n6. The Appellant craves to add, modify ... deleted the entire addition based on judicial\nprecedents and held that that since there is no investments yielding\nexempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. It is submitted\nthat this is a covered issue in favour of assessee by the consolidated\norder of the ITAT

“disallowance u/s 14A”

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUBMAI

MEGHALAYA ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED GPF TRUST,LUMJINGSHAI ,EAST KHASI HILLS vs. ACIT-CIRCLE, SHILLONG

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI vs. SATYAM REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

HCL TRAINING & STAFFING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEHRU PLACE vs. CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, I P ESTATE, NEW DELHI

NOWROSJEE WADIA AND SONS LTD (SUCESSOR TO SUNFLOWER INVESTMENT AND TEXTILES PVT LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PVR LTD., NEW DELHI

ODEAN SHRINE MULTIPLEX PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

PVR LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI