protective assessment — 441 judgments | BharatTax

PRATIBHA SINGH,SHIMLA vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CIRCLE SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court. The Hon’Ble High Court Upheld The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Holding That The Assessing Officer Possessed

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aman Singhi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

contention of the assessee proceeds on a fundamental misconception of law relating to protective and substantive assessments. The concept of protective assessment arises only where the Assessing Officer himself entertains a doubt regarding the person in whose hands a particular income is chargeable to tax and, in order to safeguard ... person or another and the enquiry is undertaken to determine the correct person liable to tax. Thus, the very foundation of a protective assessment is the existence of doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer. A protective addition, therefore, is not a right available to the assessee

ACIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TRISHUL REALTY INFRA LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the COs filed by the Assessee stand dismissed

ITA 7649/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case. In any case, it is pertinent to note that although the revenue has authority and right to make protective assessment as well as substantive assessment in another case, however, with the rider that ultimately and finally, the income/transaction/addition, if at all would ... facts and circumstances of the case, in any case, it is pertinent to note that although the revenue has authority and right to make protective assessment as well substantive assessment in another case, however, with the ridor that ultimately and Finally, the income/transaction/addition, if at all would

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI IRFAN S/O SH. MEHARBAN, BULANDSHAHAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3520/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Amish S Gupt, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

making any substantive addition. The AO has held that the substantive addition would be considered in the hands of beneficiaries. In my considered view, protective assessment cannot be independent of substantive assessment, and protective assessment must follow substantive assessment. There can be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment ... there cannot be a protective assessment without there be a substantive assessment. Thus in my view, the AO was not correct in making protective assessment of Rs. 175,03,63,927/- in the hands of Sh. Irfan without making any corresponding substantive addition. Thus, grounds of appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI IRFAN S/O SH. MEHARBAN, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3519/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Amish S Gupt, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

making any substantive addition. The AO has held that the substantive addition would be considered in the hands of beneficiaries. In my considered view, protective assessment cannot be independent of substantive assessment, and protective assessment must follow substantive assessment. There can be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment ... there cannot be a protective assessment without there be a substantive assessment. Thus in my view, the AO was not correct in making protective assessment of Rs. 175,03,63,927/- in the hands of Sh. Irfan without making any corresponding substantive addition. Thus, grounds of appeal

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. DS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 284/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: the Hon'ble

For Appellant: Sandeep Goel, Advocate

Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69C

them. Accordingly, Rs. 3,25,93,500/- were made the addition u/s 69C of the Act in the hands of the assessee as protective assessment and substantive addition was made in the case of BMG Informatics Pvt. Ltd. 5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHRI NAGENDRA PRASAD, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands allowed

ITA 109/PAT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri N.K.Lal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. A.H.Chowdhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

vague or that is opinion is not fixed. Reasons are required to be recorded in the case of the son also so that the protective assessment to protect the interest of revenue would have been passed. If the claim of the assessee is to be accepted then it would

JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 5069/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Counsel at the outset submitted that the AO made addition u/s.69A in all three assessment years i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17 as protective assessment and the addition was made substantively for the A.Y. 2017-18. In other words the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that same addition

JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

ITA 5068/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Counsel at the outset submitted that the AO made addition u/s.69A in all three assessment years i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17 as protective assessment and the addition was made substantively for the A.Y. 2017-18. In other words the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that same addition

JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

ITA 5067/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Counsel at the outset submitted that the AO made addition u/s.69A in all three assessment years i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17 as protective assessment and the addition was made substantively for the A.Y. 2017-18. In other words the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that same addition

ANISHA GUPTA,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-60(1), DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6352/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2010-11 Anisha Gupta, Vs. Acit, Circle 60(1), Kt-16, Unit No. 2101, New Delhi Jp Green Wish Town, Sector-128, Noida-201304 (Pan: Agwpg6447M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

which are enclosed at Assessee’s Paper Book Page 81 and stated that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to make the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee and substantive addition is to be made in the hands of the Hydro Technology. Ld. Counsel further stated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied such receipts, the said amount was to be protectively assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee across AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that, as the substantive addition made ... assessee, while framing his assessment. We find that, the AO had simply brushed aside all these evidences/statements etc. and framed the impugned protective assessment in a copy-paste mechanical manner. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) is also found to have passed a non-speaking order simply deleting the protective addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

ITA 1595/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.45 & 46/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos.1595 & 1596/Chny/2025] निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.K. Reddy, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Department By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied such receipts, the said amount was to be protectively assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee across AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that, as the substantive addition made ... assessee, while framing his assessment. We find that, the AO had simply brushed aside all these evidences/statements etc. and framed the impugned protective assessment in a copy-paste mechanical manner. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) is also found to have passed a non-speaking order simply deleting the protective addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied such receipts, the said amount was to be protectively assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee across AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that, as the substantive addition made ... assessee, while framing his assessment. We find that, the AO had simply brushed aside all these evidences/statements etc. and framed the impugned protective assessment in a copy-paste mechanical manner. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) is also found to have passed a non-speaking order simply deleting the protective addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied such receipts, the said amount was to be protectively assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee across AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that, as the substantive addition made ... assessee, while framing his assessment. We find that, the AO had simply brushed aside all these evidences/statements etc. and framed the impugned protective assessment in a copy-paste mechanical manner. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) is also found to have passed a non-speaking order simply deleting the protective addition

PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied such receipts, the said amount was to be protectively assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee across AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that, as the substantive addition made ... assessee, while framing his assessment. We find that, the AO had simply brushed aside all these evidences/statements etc. and framed the impugned protective assessment in a copy-paste mechanical manner. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) is also found to have passed a non-speaking order simply deleting the protective addition

PERIASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied such receipts, the said amount was to be protectively assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee across AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that, as the substantive addition made ... assessee, while framing his assessment. We find that, the AO had simply brushed aside all these evidences/statements etc. and framed the impugned protective assessment in a copy-paste mechanical manner. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) is also found to have passed a non-speaking order simply deleting the protective addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. PONKUMARI WIND FARM, KANYAKUMARI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2567/CHNY/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2566 & 2567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2005-06 & 2006-07 & C.O. No.87 & 88/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A.Nos.2566 & 2567/Chny/2025] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Ponkumari Wind Farm, Income Tax, Vs. No.17/41D, Chunkankadai Circle-1, Aloor Road, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli Kanyakumari – 629 807. Pan: Aaffp 1746B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)/Cross Objector राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 41(1)

applied, the undersigned is constrained to treat the credits as bogus for the respective Assessment years. However this Assessment Order is a “Protective Assessment Order” which depends on the finality of this issue for AY 2007-08. Hence the above credits in the books of the assessee is treated ... grounds related to addition i.e. grounds 4-7 are allowed.” 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.DR submitted that the protective assessments are made in the hands of the assessee for the reason that the order against the substantive assessment done in assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. PONKUMARI WIND FARM, KANYAKUMARI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2566/CHNY/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2566 & 2567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2005-06 & 2006-07 & C.O. No.87 & 88/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A.Nos.2566 & 2567/Chny/2025] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Ponkumari Wind Farm, Income Tax, Vs. No.17/41D, Chunkankadai Circle-1, Aloor Road, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli Kanyakumari – 629 807. Pan: Aaffp 1746B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)/Cross Objector राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 41(1)

applied, the undersigned is constrained to treat the credits as bogus for the respective Assessment years. However this Assessment Order is a “Protective Assessment Order” which depends on the finality of this issue for AY 2007-08. Hence the above credits in the books of the assessee is treated ... grounds related to addition i.e. grounds 4-7 are allowed.” 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.DR submitted that the protective assessments are made in the hands of the assessee for the reason that the order against the substantive assessment done in assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2232/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

hold accordingly. Hence, the said additions made by the AO are hereby deleted. 16. The appellant has further submitted that the AO has made protective assessment on the ground that the proceedings are pending under the BMA. Since the information was received from BVI in respect of Undisclosed Foreign Assets ... additions have subsequently been made u/s 10(3) of the BMA for AY 2017- 18. This is the contention of the appellant that the protective assessment has been made prior to substantive assessment under the BMA which is an illegality. It has been contended that it is judicially settled that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2231/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

hold accordingly. Hence, the said additions made by the AO are hereby deleted. 16. The appellant has further submitted that the AO has made protective assessment on the ground that the proceedings are pending under the BMA. Since the information was received from BVI in respect of Undisclosed Foreign Assets ... additions have subsequently been made u/s 10(3) of the BMA for AY 2017- 18. This is the contention of the appellant that the protective assessment has been made prior to substantive assessment under the BMA which is an illegality. It has been contended that it is judicially settled that

“protective assessment”

PRATIBHA SINGH,SHIMLA vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CIRCLE SHIMLA

ACIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TRISHUL REALTY INFRA LLP, MUMBAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI IRFAN S/O SH. MEHARBAN, BULANDSHAHAR

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI IRFAN S/O SH. MEHARBAN, BULANDSHAHR

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. DS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHRI NAGENDRA PRASAD, PATNA

JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

ANISHA GUPTA,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-60(1), DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

PERIASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. PONKUMARI WIND FARM, KANYAKUMARI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. PONKUMARI WIND FARM, KANYAKUMARI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI