“Section 2(14)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)695 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(14) is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43), cited in 267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(14)

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI

199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court

267

citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court

259

citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT

204 ITR 631 · 1993 · Supreme Court

197

citing judgments

The determinative test for whether land is agricultural land or a capital asset is its actual user for agricultural purposes, not merely ownership. An explicit intention to stop cultivation or convert the land to non-agricultural use can cause it to lose its agricultural character, making its sale proceeds chargeable to capital gains tax.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT

27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court

174

citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.

273 ITR 1 · 2005 · Supreme Court

140

citing judgments

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy

32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court

132

citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

83 ITR 700 · 1972 · Supreme Court

126

citing judgments

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli

330 ITR 16 · 2011 · High Court

113

citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on assets when computing the income applied for charitable or religious purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 11(6). The restriction on claiming depreciation, as introduced by Section 11(6), is prospective from AY 2015-16.

Judgments citing Section 2(14)

Shri Kishan, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3030/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

been handed over to the M/s Bestech India Pvt Ltd. The land in question comes under the definition of the agricultural land u/s section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. He has further submitted that the appellants took the consideration, from the M/s. Bestech India Pvt which fell ... delete the addition of Rs. 75,01,926/- made in the hands of the assessee." 15. The agricultural land in India defines under section 2(14) (iii)of the Act Agricultural land in India, not being land situated - (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction

Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3029/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

Rekhaben Upendrakumar Patel, Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana

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

ITA 333/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Anmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 12-01-2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059680611(1) Passed By Ld.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250

2. The Ld AO has failed to consider that the appellant has sold an agriculture land which is not capital assets as per Section 2(14) of the IT Act 1961 3 Ld. AO has alleged that the appellant failed in providing conclusive evidence in respect of claim that land ... sold was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) 4. Your Honor appellant craves to leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal or before the bearing of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed

Gunvantbhai Narandas Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 122/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 250Section 54FSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial

Yogesh Patel, Usa vs. DCIT Circle Int Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

ITA 2065/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

what they transferred or relinquished was an independent right or interest, held by them, falling in definition of capital asset within meaning of section 2(14) but certainly the same was not taxable in the hands of assessee. The AO, as also the DRP, have both fallen in error

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

Nyati Builders purchase of furniture, house hold items, Interior and brokerage etc., however, it is seen that plain reading of provisions of section 2(14) states that furniture and house hold expenses are not part of capital assets, thus, the assessee is not eligible for claim of exemption ... directed to pass an order afresh after verifying the claim of assessee under the provisions of section 54 and section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO should also verify the genuineness of expenses incurred on account of interior, house hold expenses and furniture expenses mostly paid

Idrish, Matawas vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Income Tax

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

ITA 818/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (Adv.) (Th.V.C.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra(Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Kautilya Shares and Stocks Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3884/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)

taxable under normal provisions of Income Tax Act, at the same is not included in the definition of capital asset as contained in Section 2(14) of the Act. There is no provision in Section 10, 11 and 12 of the Act whereby the income on sale of agricultural land ... book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Considering the facts that agricultural land is not a capital asset as per the provision of section 2(14) of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws:- - Harisons Malayalam Ltd. and Ors. vs. ACIT

P. Ravichandran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 54B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Ramnarayan, Budaun vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Badaun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)

time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has purchased agricultural land which is not capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act and being agricultural land deeming provision of section 56(2)(x) will not apply. Further, he submitting that the transaction entered

Ashish Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Ashish Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), R-11/32, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Agipg3854E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Gupta, Ca Shri Mukesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Order : 13.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Ghaziabad Dated 25.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Because The Order Of Ld. Lower Authority Is Bad In Law As Well As Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Because Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gain Rs.13230858/- By Wrongly Observing That Land Situated At Village Masuri Pargana Dasna Is Within The Municipal Limits Of Ghaziabad Though The Agricultural Land Is Undisputedly Beyond

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)

responded that the said land was an agricultural land and does not fall within the meaning of capital assets as per provisions of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). To verify this claim, Assessing Officer deputed Inspector of Income-tax who has submitted ... case, the asset transferred by the assessee during the year is held to be a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act and the same is chargeable to capital gain tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee

R.C. Nirula & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6093/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshr.C. Nirula & Sons Huf, Vs. Asst. Commissioner A-2, Anand Niketan, Of Income Tax, New Delhi Circle-52(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaahr6050F Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Praveen Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

provisions contained in the Act instead of confining its effect to the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. As noted, Section 2(14) of the Act defines "capital asset" inter alia as a property of any kind held by an assessee. Section 2(47) of the Act defines

Amit Yadav, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi vs. CIT Appeals Faceless Centre, Gov.of India, Min.of Finance, I.T.Deptt, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2436/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

exemption granted by the Act is for benefit of the farmers or persons engaged in the agricultural activity and thus section 2(14) of the Act removes agricultural land from the purview of definition of capital asset. In view of these findings, the AO was of the view that ... constructed and therefore the assessee was not entitled to claim the said land as agricultural land and exempted as capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act. Accordingly, a final show-cause notice was issued on 11.10.2019 to the assessee on the above lines proposing

Rita Gupta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir.2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 2(14)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 47

against the long term capital gain resulting from the sale of unquoted equity shares. The Ld. A.R submitted the provision of Section 2(14) of the Act the term capital asset has been defined while providing certain exceptions and exclusions which have been specifically defined in sub-clause ... enumerates mode of computation of gain from sale of capital asset . The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted that the capital asset as defined in section 2(14) of the Act includes inter alia shares and securities. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew attention of the Bench to the provisions

Narayan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Narayan Vs. Ito House No.431/9, Balaji Ward- 3 (1) Hanuman Mandir, Sector- Gurgaon 11, Shivaji Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001 Pan No.Aqppn9087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Yogesh Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 147Section 148Section 2

erred in law and on facts in understanding that the agricultural land sold by the appellant is not a capital asset as per section 2 (14) of the act, since it is beyond 8 KM from the municipality limit of Gurgaon as per CBDT notification No.9447/F No. 164/3/87-ITA-I dated ... only cited but was also part of the written submissions of the appellant before the CIT(A) specifically analyzing the provisions of section 2(14) and notification dated 06.01.1994 issued thereon, which was directly applicable on the facts of the case of the appellant herein and based on the very

Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, WD-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

which the AO would have had a belief that agricultural land sold by the assessee was a capital receipt within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and expression of the AO “requires much deeper scrutiny” indicated that he was mere embarking on mere presumptions without any belief

Bojjala Venkata Sudhir Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 342/HYD/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, DR

Section 2(14)(iii)

Sehgal (ITA No. 276 of 2004, dated 01/03/2011), reached a conclusion that the lands in question constitute capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act and the learned Assessing Officer was right in computing the Short Term Capital Gain on the sale of such ... fact failed to produce any evidence to show that the land in question in fact situated in any area prescribed under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. As a matter of fact, this factual aspect was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Mirza Nader Baig (supra

ACIT, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad vs. Narendra Kumar Kamaraju, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 338/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.338/Hyd/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Narendra Kumar Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kamaraju, Hyderabad. 3-83/1/A/5, Nizampet, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Pan: Aiypk 1035 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ca Ravi Bharadwaj ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Sri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sale of land admeasuring Ac 22-27 gts and the same was accepted by the AO to that extent. Further, as per section 2(14), the definition of capital asset is as under: (14) “Capital Asset” means- (a) property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected ... hands of the assessee, u/s 153A in the absence of incriminating material. 7.3. Undoubtedly, the capital asset has been defined in section 2(14) of the Act which provides that “an asset which is held by the assessee and not connected with the business or profession of the assessee

M/S. Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1352/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

which the AO would have had a belief that agricultural land sold by the assessee was a capital receipt within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and 9 I.T.A. Nos.1351 & 1352/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd. expression of the AO “requires much

Saroj Embrods Private Limited., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1351/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69