“Section 143(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(3)45,044 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT

229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court

5,834

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla

380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court

3,235

citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court

2,943

citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.

88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court

2,664

citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.

149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court

2,379

citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Judgments citing Section 143(3)

Chandra Shekhar Singh, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 354/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69A

I.T.A. No.354/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Lucknow vs. Shri Pawan Kumar Tiwari, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 88/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshradcit, Range-4. V. Shri Pawan Kumar Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Marg, Tiwari Lucknow-226001. Prop. Suneet Enterprises 31, Para Road, Rajajipuram, Lucknow. Pan:Acdpt1500B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Puneet Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

expenses/purchases against the AO despite of sufficient opportunities.” (B) In this case, vide assessment order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.5,33,25,830/- (Rounded

Amber Enterprises India Limited, Rajpura, Punjab vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR (Virtual)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

return of income on 15.02.2021 declaring income of Rs. 87,19,13,370/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B was completed on 27.09.2022 at an income of Rs. 88,33,66,370/-, after making two additions. During the course

Saroj Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 367/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.367/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Saroj Gupta Acit (Central Circle) M/S Aakash Hospital & Diagnostic बनाम/ Vs. Railway Board Building Main Bazar, Nalagarh (Hp) -174101 The Mall, Shimla (Hp) 171003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahvpg-9358-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 27-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessingofficer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 26-09-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Twin Additions Of Rs.41.94 Lacs & Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133A(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh vs. M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1306/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1285/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1286/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Dcit Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Chandigarh. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Manohar Infrastructure & बनाम/ Central Circle-1 Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Vs. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1286/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1285/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Gujarat State Petronet Limited, Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 992/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 03.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... disallowance under Section 14A of the Act at Rs.12,39,84,226/- and accordingly made the addition. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 09.12.2018 at total income of Rs.578,58,26,070/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee

Diamines & Chemicals Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both the issues relating to disallowance of deduction

ITA 1543/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80I

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] arising out of the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1)(1), Vadodara [hereinafter ... Rs.5,55,29,820/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2.2 During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the accounting and disclosure of revenue from the Kutch windmill

Mahmadamin Yasinbhai Adanwala, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1537/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee. In compliance, the assessee furnished replies along with supporting details. However, after considering the submissions, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and made an addition of ₹73,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act. Consequently

Geeta Vipulkumar Chaudhary, Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle Mehsana, Mehsana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)

Nashik (in short “the Addl. CIT(A)”) dated 30.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There was a delay of 94 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee ... excess expense of Rs.8,14,054/- was held as incurred out of undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 06.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.67,41,404/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Group Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”], under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14 in accordance with the directions of the Dispute ... office on 04.10.2017, wherein the upward addition made by the TPO was upheld. Consequent thereto, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13). 2.4 While concluding the assessment, the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty

Adyashakti Himghar Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Adyashakti Himghar Pvt. Ltd….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 11 Paul Street, Kol- 700004.. [Pan: Aacca1114C] Vs. Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Bidyut Prakas Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2016/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

income carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.12.2019 as well as at the time of completion of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2019 and, therefore, the credit for Foreign Taxes paid in the USA should have been allowed. Reliance was placed

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Ramasubbu Minnalkodi, Tirunelveli

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee at the relevant time had issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act before taking up the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). Before we go into the facts, we take note of the legal position as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 1203/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 234ASection 234BSection 260Section 80GSection 92C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

Muthusamy Nagaraj, Erode vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Erode Range Erode

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

ITA 2878/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Ms.R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Siluvaikani Chelliah, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2655/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Dr. CA. Abhishek MuraliFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Doulat Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Cricle-2 Chennai, Chennai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2236/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 119Section 131Section 133Section 143(3)Section 147

ara atcha afar, “uw aarafte, Fae IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI Hud A. caf, afte aeer

Samrat Wires Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 5154/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysamrat Wires Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-13(1) Mumbai. 303 Elphinstone House 17, Marzban Road Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH :: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Samrat Wires Pvt