← All Phrases

“Section 23(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 23Section 23(1)194 judgments

OMPRAKASH RAMSURAT YADAV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4870/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2015-16 Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav Vs. Dcit-Circle 24(1) 1403-A, Rna Heights, Mumbai J.V.L.R. Road (Respondent) Andheri East Mumbai- 400 093 Pan : Aalpy7169F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K Chhatrapati Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 21(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)

actual rent received which according to the appellant is higher than the fair rent of Rs.17.70 lakhs in accordance with the provisions of Section 23(1)(b) of the Act. It is submitted that in appellant’s own case for A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) had accepted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANISHA KAMAL KHETAN, MUMBAI

ITA 7891/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2023-24
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 24Section 250Section 68

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"D\" BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &\nSHRI MAKARAND VASANT

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

some website or some Al overview cannot be the basis for making estimate of ALV. According to him, the ALV is defined in Section 23(1) of the Act and accordingly, it has to be determined. He stated that the assessee has disclosed the ALV of ₹3.50 lakhs for seven ... Assessing Officer, he has formed an opinion taking a view that the ALV declared by the assessee is in terms of provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act. 20. On the other hand, learned CIT-DR heavily relied on the revision order and stated that the Assessing Officer

TNCP LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the quantum\nNo

ITA 2603/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

annexed\nto this submission.\nIN the above circumstances it is once again submitted that we objected to the\napplication of provisions of section 23 (1) as at 31st March 2018 for Garden city\nproject and in support of the same we have we have already submitted site\nengineers certificate regarding ... pass the\nscrutiny assessment order dated 20.09.2021 in making an addition of\nRs.29,48,467/- as income of the assessee in terms of Section 23(1) r.w.s 23(5)\nof the Act after computing the estimated cost for unsold units of 57 as on 31st\nMarch 2018 (Estimated based

TNCD LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2602/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

make an addition of 8% of the WIP considering the same as finished but unsold, under the ambit of the provisions in Section 23(1) r.w.s 23(5) of the Act by holding as follows: 5. A notional ALV of such aforesaid ... cost of 74 units (Rs.6,83,54,183/-), which were considered as unsold and finished qualifying as house property attracting the provisions of section 23(1) of the Act, after providing standard deduction at 30%. Furthermore, the AO proposed to disallow the certain payments / contributions of Provident Fund/ESI received from

RAMAN GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 40/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 40/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Raman Goyal, The Dcit, House No. 309, Vs Central Circle-1, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aanpg9677J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 35,36/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2019-20 Raman Goyal, The Dcit, House No. 309, Vs Chandigarh. Sector 9, Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aanpg9677J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 23(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

RAMAN GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 36/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 40/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Raman Goyal, The Dcit, House No. 309, Vs Central Circle-1, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aanpg9677J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 35,36/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2019-20 Raman Goyal, The Dcit, House No. 309, Vs Chandigarh. Sector 9, Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aanpg9677J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 23(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

RAMAN GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 35/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 40/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Raman Goyal, The Dcit, House No. 309, Vs Central Circle-1, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aanpg9677J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 35,36/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2019-20 Raman Goyal, The Dcit, House No. 309, Vs Chandigarh. Sector 9, Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aanpg9677J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 23(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

ARCHNA CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 52(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2841/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaarchna Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 52(1) Office No. 8, First Floor, Civic Centre, Scindia House, Cannaught Minto Road Place, Delhi – 110001 New Delhi - 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipm7190F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Guarav Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

discretion/ directions of Hon'ble Civil Court in suit No. 814/90 for unauthorized occupation of immovable property by Indian Overseas Bank, under Section 23(1) of Act.” P a g e | 11 Archna Chadha (AY: 2016-17) 9. We observe that the plea with regard to year of taxability

NEERAJ YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GURGAON

ITA 7826/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 147Section 23(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment

PANKAJ CHHATWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 4142/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 27(1)

assessee and sustaining addition of Rs.4,20,000/- in impugned assessment order of Ld AO are totally unlawful as vacancy allowance as per section 23(1)(c) has been allowed by AO as well as CIT (A) where property no. A-92 Sec-51 is let out in subsequent years

IDHAYAM INFRAHEIGHTS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , FARIDABAD

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 6779/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ita No. 6779/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Shop No. 2, Second Floor, Lajpat Central Circle, Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Faridabad, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd9391G Assessee By: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 6778 & 6779/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S In Case Nos. 10948/2019-20 & 10308/2020-21 Both Dated 11.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 23(1)Section 24Section 28

paid Rs.4,00,00,000/- as security to the appellant, M/s Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has argued non applicability of the section 23(1) for calculation of annual value of property and also section 28 as business income. The appellant further states that order is arbitrary and illegal

IDHAYAM INFRAHEIGHTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLCE, FARIDABAD

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 6778/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ita No. 6779/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Shop No. 2, Second Floor, Lajpat Central Circle, Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Faridabad, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd9391G Assessee By: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 6778 & 6779/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S In Case Nos. 10948/2019-20 & 10308/2020-21 Both Dated 11.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 23(1)Section 24Section 28

paid Rs.4,00,00,000/- as security to the appellant, M/s Idhayam Infraheights Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has argued non applicability of the section 23(1) for calculation of annual value of property and also section 28 as business income. The appellant further states that order is arbitrary and illegal

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

compensation in the year of receipt instead of in the year of transfer of the capital asset. The court considered the provisions of sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and section 23(2) of the Act as well as section 28 and section ... observed that section 23(1-A) was introduced in the 1894 Act to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner of the land who is deprived of its enjoyment by taking possession from him and using it for public purpose, because of the considerable delay and offering payment thereof

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section 23(1)(c) of the Act, it is not at all relevant as to whether the property was let out in past ... owner for let it out and efforts were also made to let it out, then the properties were covered by provision of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We are also of the ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section 23(1)(c) of the Act, it is not at all relevant as to whether the property was let out in past ... owner for let it out and efforts were also made to let it out, then the properties were covered by provision of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We are also of the ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 1550/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

interest to the aggregate rent and recomputed income from house property at Rs. 23,62,620/- thereby added Rs. 8,40,000/- under section 23(1)(a). On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee was allowed relief on the basis of decision of Jurisdictional High Court

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 4418/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

interest to the aggregate rent and recomputed income from house property at Rs. 23,62,620/- thereby added Rs. 8,40,000/- under section 23(1)(a). On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee was allowed relief on the basis of decision of Jurisdictional High Court

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1323/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huligal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi G V, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

owing to the peculiarities of their location, remained vacant and were thus eligible for the applicability of the provisions of clause (c) of Section 23(1) of the Act. 3. The grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, modify, or withdraw ... under covid19 pandemic and therefore there was no possibility to let out the properties during that period. The Ld.AR also submitted that section 23(1)(c) would apply to the facts of the present case and prayed to allow the appeals. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1322/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huligal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi G V, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

owing to the peculiarities of their location, remained vacant and were thus eligible for the applicability of the provisions of clause (c) of Section 23(1) of the Act. 3. The grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, modify, or withdraw ... under covid19 pandemic and therefore there was no possibility to let out the properties during that period. The Ld.AR also submitted that section 23(1)(c) would apply to the facts of the present case and prayed to allow the appeals. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders

Showing 1–20 of 194 · Page 1 of 10

...