substantive assessment — 355 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

without cogent documentary evidence cannot shift the burden from the assessee. It was further argued that the concepts of protective and substantive assessment apply only when the Assessing Officer is uncertain about the real owner of the income and consciously seeks to safeguard the Revenue by taxing the same income ... income allegedly belonged to the HUF. 31. The 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

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

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 be in the hands ... 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 be in the hands

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

been added on protective basis and information regarding the beneficiaries was passed on to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the beneficiaries for substantive assessment. The commission of Rs.22.12 lacs has been added on substantive basis. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No.3561/Del/2015 vide order dated

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1271/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

been added on protective basis and information regarding the beneficiaries was passed on to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the beneficiaries for substantive assessment. The commission of Rs.22.12 lacs has been added on substantive basis. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No.3561/Del/2015 vide order dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , LATUR vs. VIMAL JAYDEV ARYA, LATUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2156/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

been added on protective basis and information regarding the beneficiaries was passed on to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the beneficiaries for substantive assessment. The commission of Rs.22.12 lacs has been added on substantive basis. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No.3561/Del/2015 vide order dated

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

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 but 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 no. 5 to 9 of the appeal are allowed

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

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 but 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 no. 5 to 9 of the appeal are allowed

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7688/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rallis India Limited Dy. Cit, Circle 8(1)(1) Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Esplanade House, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcr 2657 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Percy J Pardiwalla & Shri Jeet Kamdar Respondent By : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.09.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2022-23. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, The Core Issue Arising In Appeal Relates To Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.1284.66 Crores On Account Of Adjustments Under Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (‘Icds’ For Short).

For Appellant: Shri Percy J Pardiwalla and Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

issued u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act merges with the assessment order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, that is the only substantive assessment order in existence, the first appellate authority should have dealt with the issue on merits. He submitted, while considering the writ petition filed

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

passed in the matters of Shri NRV in the impugned order(s) noting that the entries found in the account book(s) had been substantively assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV by way of his unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied ... hands of Shri NRV is deleted, then the protective addition(s) so made in the hands of the assessee, be directed to be substantively assessed. The Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand, vehemently contended that, the account books maintained by him and found from his premises, actually

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

passed in the matters of Shri NRV in the impugned order(s) noting that the entries found in the account book(s) had been substantively assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV by way of his unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied ... hands of Shri NRV is deleted, then the protective addition(s) so made in the hands of the assessee, be directed to be substantively assessed. The Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand, vehemently contended that, the account books maintained by him and found from his premises, actually

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANI GOBINATH, DINDIGUL

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection(s) of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1543/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Mr.V. Naga Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

reasoning set out in the income-tax assessments of Shri NRV, wherein the notings found in the notebooks of Shri CPA had been substantively assessed. The AO was of the view that, since the assessee was receiving the coal commission on behalf of Shri NRV, and the bifurcation and explanations ... amounts was being collected by Shri NRV, directly or through the assessee. As observed earlier, the impugned protective assessment(s) stemmed from the substantive assessment(s) framed in the matters of Shri NRV. Having regard to the findings recorded in the matters of Shri NRV (supra) for quashing the notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANI GOBINATH, DINDIGUL

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection(s) of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1542/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Mr.V. Naga Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

reasoning set out in the income-tax assessments of Shri NRV, wherein the notings found in the notebooks of Shri CPA had been substantively assessed. The AO was of the view that, since the assessee was receiving the coal commission on behalf of Shri NRV, and the bifurcation and explanations ... amounts was being collected by Shri NRV, directly or through the assessee. As observed earlier, the impugned protective assessment(s) stemmed from the substantive assessment(s) framed in the matters of Shri NRV. Having regard to the findings recorded in the matters of Shri NRV (supra) for quashing the notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANI GOBINATH, DINDIGUL

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection(s) of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1541/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Mr.V. Naga Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

reasoning set out in the income-tax assessments of Shri NRV, wherein the notings found in the notebooks of Shri CPA had been substantively assessed. The AO was of the view that, since the assessee was receiving the coal commission on behalf of Shri NRV, and the bifurcation and explanations ... amounts was being collected by Shri NRV, directly or through the assessee. As observed earlier, the impugned protective assessment(s) stemmed from the substantive assessment(s) framed in the matters of Shri NRV. Having regard to the findings recorded in the matters of Shri NRV (supra) for quashing the notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANI GOBINATH, DINDIGUL

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection(s) of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1540/CHNY/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Mr.V. Naga Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

reasoning set out in the income-tax assessments of Shri NRV, wherein the notings found in the notebooks of Shri CPA had been substantively assessed. The AO was of the view that, since the assessee was receiving the coal commission on behalf of Shri NRV, and the bifurcation and explanations ... amounts was being collected by Shri NRV, directly or through the assessee. As observed earlier, the impugned protective assessment(s) stemmed from the substantive assessment(s) framed in the matters of Shri NRV. Having regard to the findings recorded in the matters of Shri NRV (supra) for quashing the notice

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

passed in the matters of Shri NRV in the impugned order(s) noting that the entries found in the account book(s) had been substantively assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV by way of his unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied ... hands of Shri NRV is deleted, then the protective addition(s) so made in the hands of the assessee, be directed to be substantively assessed. The Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand, vehemently contended that, the account books maintained by him and found from his premises, actually

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

passed in the matters of Shri NRV in the impugned order(s) noting that the entries found in the account book(s) had been substantively assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV by way of his unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied ... hands of Shri NRV is deleted, then the protective addition(s) so made in the hands of the assessee, be directed to be substantively assessed. The Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand, vehemently contended that, the account books maintained by him and found from his premises, actually

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

passed in the matters of Shri NRV in the impugned order(s) noting that the entries found in the account book(s) had been substantively assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV by way of his unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied ... hands of Shri NRV is deleted, then the protective addition(s) so made in the hands of the assessee, be directed to be substantively assessed. The Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand, vehemently contended that, the account books maintained by him and found from his premises, actually

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

passed in the matters of Shri NRV in the impugned order(s) noting that the entries found in the account book(s) had been substantively assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV by way of his unaccounted income. The AO however observed that, since Shri NRV had denied ... hands of Shri NRV is deleted, then the protective addition(s) so made in the hands of the assessee, be directed to be substantively assessed. The Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand, vehemently contended that, the account books maintained by him and found from his premises, actually

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)

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 2007-08 was appealed against before the Hon’ble High Court. The Ld.DR further submitted that the Hon’ble High ... assessment year 2010-11 may be considered and decided accordingly. 6. The Ld.AR on the other hand argued that the substantive assessment towards the same amount are made by the AO in the assessment year 2007-08 and that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case (ITA No.1393/Mds/2009

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)

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 2007-08 was appealed against before the Hon’ble High Court. The Ld.DR further submitted that the Hon’ble High ... assessment year 2010-11 may be considered and decided accordingly. 6. The Ld.AR on the other hand argued that the substantive assessment towards the same amount are made by the AO in the assessment year 2007-08 and that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case (ITA No.1393/Mds/2009

“substantive assessment”

PRATIBHA SINGH,SHIMLA vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CIRCLE SHIMLA

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

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , LATUR vs. VIMAL JAYDEV ARYA, LATUR

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

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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. RAJAMANI GOBINATH, DINDIGUL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANI GOBINATH, DINDIGUL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANI GOBINATH, DINDIGUL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANI GOBINATH, DINDIGUL

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