What is the leading case on annual letting value?

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673) is the decision most relied on for annual letting value, cited in 381 judgments on BharatTax. Income from immovable property, such as unsold flats or shops, held by an assessee as stock-in-trade in their business of acquiring and holding properties is taxable as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. Consequently, notional annual letting value under Section 23 cannot be attributed to such stock-in-trade.

Which cases are most cited on annual letting value?

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673) — 381 citing judgments; CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (354 ITR 180) — 208 citing judgments; CIT v. Tip Top Typography (368 ITR 330) — 161 citing judgments; CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba (333 ITR 38) — 78 citing judgments; CIT v. Bhaskar Mitter (73 Taxmann 437) — 52 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss annual letting value?

BharatTax indexes 238 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss annual letting value (Section 23).

annual letting value — 238 case laws

Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav, Mumbai vs. DCIT- Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4870/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2015-16 Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav Vs. Dcit-Circle 24(1) 1403-A, Rna Heights, Mumbai J.V.L.R. Road (Respondent) Andheri East Mumbai- 400 093 Pan : Aalpy7169F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K Chhatrapati Sr.DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 21(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)

appellant could not produce the certificate and the Affidavit before the authorities below. 6. It is submitted by the ld. AR that the Annual Letting Value (ALV) ought to have been accepted and determined at Rs.21,00,000/- representing the actual rent received which according to the appellant is higher ... Trust. Even so far as the appellant is concerned for A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the claim of Annual Letting Value being taken at 5% of the capital value of the property and had directed the AO to work out the allowance and give relief

Mukul Rohatgi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate

Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

verified by the Assessing Officer and the assessee will file the complete details before the Assessing Officer in this regard. 2nd Issue – Annual Letting Value of various properties. 7. Coming to the first property at London i.e., Apartment No.8 in Hepworth Court 30 at Gatlif Road, London, the PCIT notes ... order that this property was not shown in the ‘AL Schedule' and also no ALV (Annual Letting Value) from this property was disclosed by the assessee. According to PCIT, even the assessee has not mentioned that the assessee has sold the property in the relevant assessment year 2020-21. According

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Properties Infrastructure Ltd vs DCIT [354] ITR 180 (Del) held that Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the unsold flats is to be taxed. The AO is found to have estimated the notional rent at Rs.8,73,515/- and taxed the same ... referred before the Hon'ble High Court was as under: "Whether the assessee was liable to pay income tax on the annual letting value of unsold flats owned by it under the head "income from house property"? 15.1. There the facts relevant to the issue raised relate to the addition

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Properties Infrastructure Ltd vs DCIT [354] ITR 180 (Del) held that Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the unsold flats is to be taxed. The AO is found to have estimated the notional rent at Rs.8,73,515/- and taxed the same ... referred before the Hon'ble High Court was as under: "Whether the assessee was liable to pay income tax on the annual letting value of unsold flats owned by it under the head "income from house property"? 15.1. There the facts relevant to the issue raised relate to the addition

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cent. Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Properties Infrastructure Ltd vs DCIT [354] ITR 180 (Del) held that Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the unsold flats is to be taxed. The AO is found to have estimated the notional rent at Rs.8,73,515/- and taxed the same ... referred before the Hon'ble High Court was as under: "Whether the assessee was liable to pay income tax on the annual letting value of unsold flats owned by it under the head "income from house property"? 15.1. There the facts relevant to the issue raised relate to the addition

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Properties Infrastructure Ltd vs DCIT [354] ITR 180 (Del) held that Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the unsold flats is to be taxed. The AO is found to have estimated the notional rent at Rs.8,73,515/- and taxed the same ... referred before the Hon'ble High Court was as under: "Whether the assessee was liable to pay income tax on the annual letting value of unsold flats owned by it under the head "income from house property"? 15.1. There the facts relevant to the issue raised relate to the addition

Apcotex Industries Limited, Raogarh vs. Income Tax Officer - Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, having regard to the foregoing discussion and

ITA 6022/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shuk

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24Section 250Section 32

actual rental income was disclosed by the assessee for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer proceeded to determine the annual letting value of the property by adopting a method based on Manual XVII of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. By adopting 12 4 ITA No. 6022/Mum/2025 Apcotex Industries

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

held as under: . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 14 "8. The controversy raised in the second question is as to whether the annual letting value of the property determined by the Tribunal could be a figure lower than that returned by the assessee. The principles for determining the annual letting ... income, is not taxable in law. The Tribunal, therefore, in our view did not commit any error in directing to fix the correct annual letting value of the premises in question, in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

held as under: . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 14 "8. The controversy raised in the second question is as to whether the annual letting value of the property determined by the Tribunal could be a figure lower than that returned by the assessee. The principles for determining the annual letting ... income, is not taxable in law. The Tribunal, therefore, in our view did not commit any error in directing to fix the correct annual letting value of the premises in question, in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although

Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Mathikere vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

held as under: . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 14 "8. The controversy raised in the second question is as to whether the annual letting value of the property determined by the Tribunal could be a figure lower than that returned by the assessee. The principles for determining the annual letting ... income, is not taxable in law. The Tribunal, therefore, in our view did not commit any error in directing to fix the correct annual letting value of the premises in question, in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

held as under: . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 14 "8. The controversy raised in the second question is as to whether the annual letting value of the property determined by the Tribunal could be a figure lower than that returned by the assessee. The principles for determining the annual letting ... income, is not taxable in law. The Tribunal, therefore, in our view did not commit any error in directing to fix the correct annual letting value of the premises in question, in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although

DCIT, CC- 2(1), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

held as under: . ITA Nos.1027-1028-1296-1297-1286/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 14 "8. The controversy raised in the second question is as to whether the annual letting value of the property determined by the Tribunal could be a figure lower than that returned by the assessee. The principles for determining the annual letting ... income, is not taxable in law. The Tribunal, therefore, in our view did not commit any error in directing to fix the correct annual letting value of the premises in question, in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although

Kailas Kantilal Kothari, Nashik vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1957/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi, AR (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT (virtual)

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

Bank at Rs. 23,04,000/- which has already been considered under the head „income from self-occupied property‟ has again taxed as Annual Letting Value of self occupied property. Such adjustment made by the CPC clearly indicates that the rental income from Kotak Mahindra Bank has been taxed twice

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 228/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 148Section 148ASection 37(1)

inference is therefore baseless. If the AO believed that the lease rent was deflated, it was open to the Department to examine the annual letting value in the hands of GCSPL; but having accepted the rent in the assessee's hands as a contractual payment, the AO could not question

Paramjit Singh Mohansingh Obhan, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4863/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantt & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J PatelFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR.DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 250

assessable under the head ‘income from business’ when they are sold and therefore the AO is not correct in bringing to tax notional annual letting value in respect of those unsold flats under the head ‘income from house property’. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition made under

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 544/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

years 2012-13 to 2017-18. 2. The appeal for the AY 2015-16 is the lead assessment year, wherein the issue of annual letting value of the property cropped up for the first time and also reached to ITAT in the 1st round of appeal. The present appeal ... balance sheet deposits from tenants at Rs.10 crores and disclosed income from property at Rs.3,60,000/- only and the AO estimated the annual letting value of the property at 1.79 crores and accordingly brought to tax ignoring the entire contention of the Assessee that property was used partly

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 543/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

years 2012-13 to 2017-18. 2. The appeal for the AY 2015-16 is the lead assessment year, wherein the issue of annual letting value of the property cropped up for the first time and also reached to ITAT in the 1st round of appeal. The present appeal ... balance sheet deposits from tenants at Rs.10 crores and disclosed income from property at Rs.3,60,000/- only and the AO estimated the annual letting value of the property at 1.79 crores and accordingly brought to tax ignoring the entire contention of the Assessee that property was used partly

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 542/DEL/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

years 2012-13 to 2017-18. 2. The appeal for the AY 2015-16 is the lead assessment year, wherein the issue of annual letting value of the property cropped up for the first time and also reached to ITAT in the 1st round of appeal. The present appeal ... balance sheet deposits from tenants at Rs.10 crores and disclosed income from property at Rs.3,60,000/- only and the AO estimated the annual letting value of the property at 1.79 crores and accordingly brought to tax ignoring the entire contention of the Assessee that property was used partly

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 541/DEL/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

years 2012-13 to 2017-18. 2. The appeal for the AY 2015-16 is the lead assessment year, wherein the issue of annual letting value of the property cropped up for the first time and also reached to ITAT in the 1st round of appeal. The present appeal ... balance sheet deposits from tenants at Rs.10 crores and disclosed income from property at Rs.3,60,000/- only and the AO estimated the annual letting value of the property at 1.79 crores and accordingly brought to tax ignoring the entire contention of the Assessee that property was used partly

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Dlehi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 540/DEL/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

years 2012-13 to 2017-18. 2. The appeal for the AY 2015-16 is the lead assessment year, wherein the issue of annual letting value of the property cropped up for the first time and also reached to ITAT in the 1st round of appeal. The present appeal ... balance sheet deposits from tenants at Rs.10 crores and disclosed income from property at Rs.3,60,000/- only and the AO estimated the annual letting value of the property at 1.79 crores and accordingly brought to tax ignoring the entire contention of the Assessee that property was used partly

“annual letting value”

Leading authorities on annual letting value

Judgments citing annual letting value

Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav, Mumbai vs. DCIT- Circle 24(1), Mumbai

Mukul Rohatgi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 61(1), New Delhi

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cent. Circle-2(3), Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

Apcotex Industries Limited, Raogarh vs. Income Tax Officer - Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Mathikere vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

DCIT, CC- 2(1), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

Kailas Kantilal Kothari, Nashik vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., Pune

Paramjit Singh Mohansingh Obhan, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(2), Mumbai

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Dlehi