“bogus LTCG”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68806 judgments

RAMESHKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT

Accordingly the estimated addition made of Rs.35,166/-[0.5% of 70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed

ITA 669/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69C

relying upon information received from the Investigation Wing regarding penny stock manipulation, held that the scrip of Sunrise Asian Ltd. was used for generating bogus LTCG entries. The Assessing Officer observed that the price of the scrip had increased abnormally without any commensurate financial performance of the company and that ... lakhs during period when general market trend was recessive -He thus, opined that shares of 'S' matched all features of companies which were providing bogus LTCG and made additions under section 68 by treating LTCG as unaccounted income- Whether since assessee failed to establish credit worthiness of companies and that

BHAWNA KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Bhawna Kapoor Vs. Acit Prop M/S Manish Circle 62(1) Handicraft 1196, Main Delhi Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk 3853 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata identified 84 listed penny stock companies, shares of which were used for generating bogus LTCG by various entry operators for the beneficiaries who approached the entry operators. The P a g e | 3 Bhawna Kapoor (AY 2014-15) assessee is one of the beneficiaries ... Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed on the report, without further corroboration on the basis of cogent material, does not justify his con-clusion that

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

case where income is chargeable under the deeming income provisions the transactions can be overlapping. There is no doubt that for alleged bogus LTCG, additions can be made u/s 68 of the Act, and for that reasons the order of CIT(A) requires no interference. 6. Then as with regard ... different courts in other cases. The Assessing Officer mentioned upon general modus operandi as alleged by the Kolkata Investigation Report in the cases where bogus LTCG is claimed. The A.O has drawn a negative inference from the fact that the M/s. Sunstar Realty Development Limited, HPC Biosciences Limited

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

Biosciences Ltd. is\nalso one such company which was identified as a listed penny stock on BSE\nwhich was used for generating bogus LTCG. By relying on the detailed findings\nin the investigation report of Kolkata, he observed that the investigation made by\nthe assessee through Mr. Ankur Jain ... transactions entered by the Companies through multiple\nlayering of transactions and entries provided. Even the BSE listed this\ncompany as being used for generating bogus LTCG On the facts of the case\nand Judicial pronouncements will give rise to only conclusion that the entire\nactivities of the assessee

JAYSHREE HARESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 19(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4206/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)

order of the Ld. CIT(A) is\nset aside and the Ld. AO is directed to delete the addition made on account of\nalleged bogus LTCG amount to Rs.7,41,59,400/-.\n8.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4206/Mum/2025 is\nallowed.\nOrder pronounced

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

held that in this particular case, the ld. DIT (Inv.) had carried out countrywide investigation to unearthed the organized racket of generating bogus LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had also passed orders ... respectively within no time and without any reasonable economic or financial basis. Thus, it was quite clear that the assessee had tried to claim bogus LTCG and furnished inaccurate particulars with regard to the same thereby attracting the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The ld. CIT(A) therefore, dismissed

NAYNA MUKESH SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 41(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1861/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ms. Nayna Mukesh Shah, Dcit, Circle 41(2)(1), 14E, Konark Darshan, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Jain Mandir Road, Sarvodaya Nagar, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mulund (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080 Mumbai – 400051. Pan: Aoqps4652E (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Assessing Officer (‘AO’ for short) sought for details pertaining to the said transaction alleged to be a penny scrip for the purpose of availing bogus LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Act as exempt in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.1 ... case pursuant to the information received from ADIT (Inv.), Unit-8(2), Mumbai that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of availing bogus LTCG by transacting in the said penny scrip. It is further observed that the assessee had purchased 50,000 shares of the scrip for a meagre

SHEETAL RAJEEV GADRE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8534/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

Jain was discovered to be operating with his several associates to rig the stock market and to provide accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG, bogus short term loss/ gain to various beneficiaries who intended to bring their unaccounted income into their books of account without paying taxes

ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SKA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5967/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala &For Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SKA

SKA SALES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICSR, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5527/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

{"clean_text": "ITA No.5527&5967/Mum/2025\n Assessment Year 2017-2018\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“F” BENCH, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TEJPRAKASH SOHAN LAL DANGI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7624/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68Section 69C

assessee on account of addition made u/s. 69C of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.7,47,083/- towards commission paid for\nobtaining bogus LTCG entries.\nvi. The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly relied upon the ITAT decision in Chirag Tejprakash\nDangi, ignoring that each case of penny stock transaction must

INNOVATE DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 31/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250

city only. Based on these general observations, the AO concluded that the price of shares M/s Looks Health Services Ltd rigged up to provide bogus LTCG/ STCL to beneficiaries. The AO in its order has stated nowhere that any enquiry or investigation was carried out with any concerned authority ... Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed on the report, without further corroboration on the basis of cogent material, does not justify his conclusion that the transaction

DURGA VIJAYKUMAR LAKHANI ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 27 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5787/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardurga Vijakumar Lakhani Principal Cit-27 Plot No. 117, A-Lane Gokul, Mumbai Vs. Near Sagar Vihar, Sector-8, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aazpl 4339 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.07.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To Ground Nos. 1 & 3 & Submitted That The Appeal Can Be Decided On The Limited Issue Of Lack Of Proper Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment. For Deciding This Issue, We May Discuss Few Relevant Facts.

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

Based on such information, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) reopened the assessment, as, according to him the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus LTCG from sale of scrip of Ojas Asset, a penny stock company. He further found that during the year under consideration, the assessee had traded

PRAMOD RAMAVATAR PODDAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of as directed above

ITA 174/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.174/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pramod Ramavatar Poddar The Pr. Cit, Central Circle बनाम/ 203, Pinnacle Business Prk Ahmedabad – 380 009 V/S. Corporate Road Prahladnagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abrpp 6193 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr.Cit’] Dated 30/03/2021 Passed In Exercise Of His Revision Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015- 16. Pramod Ramavatar Poddar Vs. Pr.Cit Asst.Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So far as the contention of the assessee that the issue relating to claim of bogus LTCG was pending before this Tribunal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the order under revision was on account of disallowance of cost u/s 115BBE ... order under appeal before the ITAT was relating to the validity of the quantum additions made by the AO on account of claim of bogus LTCG. He, therefore, held that the issues were different, even though interlinked. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has furnished a copy

ACIT, MUMBAI CITY vs. SHRI BISHAN JUGRAJ JAIN, MUMBAI CITY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 531/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Shri Bishan Jugraj Jain, Room No.640, 301/302, Vaastu Park – A Wing, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Link Road, Malad (West), Churchgate, Mumbai- 400064 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Afgpj7399A (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT - DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

found that assessee had dealt in the alleged penny scrip of Ojas Assets & Reconstruction Co. Ltd. which had manipulated the scrips for providing bogus LTCG to various beneficiaries including the assessee. The Ld. DR further contended that the assessee had challenged the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act stating ... incriminating material found or seized during the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act where the assessee’s involvement in availing bogus LTCG is not established. The Ld. CIT(A) had relied on various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts wherein it has been held that

AMIT GOYAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1159/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Amit Goyal Huf, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M-59, Greater Kailash-Ii, Ward 30(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi (Pan: Aalha3711R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

different courts mother cases. The Assessing Officer mentioned upon general modus operandi as alleged by the Kolkata Investigation Report in the cases where bogus LTCG is claimed. The A.O has drawn a negative inference from the fact that the M/s. Sunstar Realty Development Limited, HPC Biosciences Limited and AMS Powertronics ... authorities below, we are of the considered view that the Id. AO has primarily gone on the broad parameters of analyzing transactions of bogus LTCG claims. The conclusions were more outcome of the Investigation Wing report and the SEBI orders then anything specific discovered by any independent investigation or enquiry

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 337/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

observed that the said scrip had been identified as one of the BSE listed penny stocks which were being used for generating bogus LTCG. The AO required the assessee to establish the genuineness of the LTCG. The response of the assessee was that the payments made for the purchase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 336/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 334/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

NIRMAN,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 69A

case of the aforesaid persons, wherein unaccounted cash and digital evidences relating to accommodation entries, bogus LTCG, and contrived losses were allegedly found. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added ... accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) along with incriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine record of unaccounted cash, synchronized trading, proving bogus LTCG in various BSE listed scripts and transport of such cash through angadiyas was found to be maintained in secret Tally Data file - 3– Nirman

Showing 1–20 of 806 · Page 1 of 41

...