“Section 271(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)5,698 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)

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.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court

1,183

citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court

694

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)

Chandra Prakash Jain, Jaipur vs. Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Joint CIT, Ld

Section 10(38)Section 139(4)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Nalini Vijay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1542/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 07.08.2024 both in respect of quantum additions and consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2017-18. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1.1 The order ... made in the hands of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act for both the assessment years under consideration. Consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been levied on the assessee for the impugned years under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Nalini Vijay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1541/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

Nalini Vijay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1540/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC), Delhi vide orders dated 07.08.2024 both in respect of quantum additions and consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Ys.2015-16 and 2017-18. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- ITA No. 1539/Ahd/2024 ... made in the hands of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act for both the assessment years under consideration. Consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been levied on the assessee for the impugned years under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Nalini Vijay Shah, Satellite vs. Ward 3(1)(2) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1539/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

Subramaniam Saravanakumar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Ncc-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2953/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2953/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Subramaniam Saravanakumar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 188, Sukrawarpet Street, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 001. Non Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. [Pan:Accps5345Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 14 Grounds In His Appeal & Mainly Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Without Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)

without condoning delay in filing the appeal. 2 I.T.A. No.2953/Chny/24 3. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 04.09.2021. Against the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... No.2953/Chny/24 was reproduced at page 11 & 12 the impugned order, we note that the contention of the assessee is penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not delivered to the e-mail ID of the assessee and in support of his submissions, the assessee produced

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Kishanchand Bhatia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the R

ITA 720/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009 Acit-23(1), Mumbai Anil Kishanchand Bhatia Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, D2, 67/68, Green Field Chs, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Near Majas Depot. Jvlr Road Lower Parel. Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aaapb 9588 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 13/03/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

particulars of the income by the failure to furnish accurate p articulars of the income by the assessee which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the care of K.P. Madhusudhan

Nihal Industries Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1488/AHD/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1488/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nihal Industries Private The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited Ward-3(1)(1) V/S. 1961, Above Royal Cycle Ahmedabad Inside Panchkuwa Panchkuwa Ahmedabad – 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcn 7129 D (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arjav D. Vidani, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.06.2024, Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjav D. Vidani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

dated 21.06.2024, confirming the penalty of Rs.30,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “AO”] under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year ... assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 04.05.2023, making an addition of Rs.2,44,53,602/-. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated, and the AO imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance with the statutory notices

Milind Jagannath Bhole, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

In the result, in terms of paragraph 6 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 243/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessee was proceeded ex- parte and the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 27/08/2021, passed under Section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee has raised following 11 grounds of appeal. Ground 1 ... facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, erred in confirming the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) wherein the LdAssessing Officer had not mentioned whether the notice has been issued towards "Concealment of income" or "for furnishing of inaccurate particulars", thus

M/S G M Builders, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Mumbai), Old-ACIT Circle-22(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

taxmann.com 329 (Mad.), after considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, observed as follows: – “14. In view of Section 271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could include ... Tribunal was right in revoking the order of the Addl. Commissioner in so far as it pertains to the question of penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b). Here, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. It is well established that proceedings

Income Tax Officer, Indore vs. Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Tillor Khurad, Indore

ITA 327/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 269TSection 271E

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without Page 11 of 20 Sewa Sahkari ... regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could

Ms Imsofer Manufacturing India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)– Pune and National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Pune and NFAC (Delhi)

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

ITA 1316/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &

Section 154Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(A)

learned CTT(A) erred in violating the provisions of section 251 (1)(b) of the Act. Non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c); 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has heard the quantum appeal of the appellant. Accordingly ... erred in ignoring that there is absence of essential element for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the Appellant's case viz. ‘concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Kangeyam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3112/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3110, 3111 & 3112/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Anna Cell Com, V. Ward -1(4), 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Tirupur. Kangeyam – 638 701. [Pan: Adhpv-7648-F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

already been made from the income earned and hence no need to comply to any of the notices. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notices was not warranted as there was a reasonable cause to the assessee

Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Kangeyam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3111/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Kangeyam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3110/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 140/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 1ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 139/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 1ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Alliance Dealers Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 89/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are illegal and unsustainable ... concealment when the return income itself was accepted without modification and there was no undisclosed income which is sine qua non for invoking section 271(1)(c). Alliance Dealers P Ltd. Vs DCIT 5. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground before

Ravi Pichaya, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 73/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

interest have been charged by the Company from the appellant. The Hon'ble Tribunal has upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the addition of deemed dividend in its order ITA No.7733/Mum/2010, Α.Υ. 2003-04 dated 05/02/2014. 5.16 The reliance of appellant in plethora

Ravi Pichaya, Director in Hextech Engineers India Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2205/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A