What is the leading case on Section 144C of the Income Tax Act?

21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India (2 SCC 181) is the decision most relied on for Section 144C, cited in 318 judgments.

Which cases are most cited on Section 144C?

21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India (2 SCC 181) — 318 citing judgments; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. (445 ITR 537) — 269 citing judgments; Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (3 SCC 1) — 267 citing judgments; CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf (113 ITR 589) — 235 citing judgments; Shelf Drilling 4. In ACIT (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. (177 Taxmann.com 262) — 216 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 144C?

BharatTax indexes 784 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 144C of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 144C is 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India (2 SCC 181), cited in 318 of the 784 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 144C

21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India

2 SCC 181 · 2007 · Supreme Court

318

citing judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court

269

citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association

3 SCC 1 · 1992 · Reported

267

citing judgments

If an issue has been decided by a competent court or bench, and that decision remains undisturbed by a higher court, subsequent appeals on the same issue can be dismissed as being covered by the earlier judgment, underscoring judicial discipline.

CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf

113 ITR 589 · 1978 · High Court

235

citing judgments

An Income-tax Tribunal, operating anywhere in the country, must respect and follow the law laid down by any High Court, even if it is a non-jurisdictional High Court, as long as there is no contrary decision from another High Court on that specific legal point. The law declared by such a High Court is considered the final law of the land for the Tribunal.

Shelf Drilling 4. In ACIT (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.

177 Taxmann.com 262 · 2025 · Supreme Court

216

citing judgments

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court

213

citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

(i) Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain

1 SCC 373 · 1997 · Reported

187

citing judgments

A statute must be read as a whole, construing every clause with reference to its context and other provisions, to determine the legislature's real intention and ensure a consistent enactment. This principle, known as "ex visceribus actus," helps avoid inconsistencies within the law.

CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd.

147 Taxmann.com 224 · 2023 · Supreme Court

178

citing judgments

CIT v. Eicher Ltd.

294 ITR 310 · 2007 · High Court

171

citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be considered erroneous for want of an inquiry, thus restricting revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer applied their mind to the issue and had all relevant facts before them. Additionally, disallowed expenditures are not to be included as part of an asset's cost for tax purposes.

Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. v. ACIT\n(Intl. Taxation)

153 Taxmann.com 162 · 2023 · High Court

169

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 144C

BAULI INDIA BAKES & SWEETS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 (1), PUNE , PUNE, DELHI

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

ITA 2923/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shir Pawan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: None(Letter dated 6-04-2026)For Respondent: Shri .Prakash L Pathade.CIT-DR

ACHAMPET SOLAR PRIVATE LTD. ,TELANGANA vs. ITO WARD-1(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/DEL/2022[2017--18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2026

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Achampet Solar Private Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Prasad & Prasad, Ward-1(1) Delhi Cas Room No. 380A, Cr Flat No. 301, Mj Towers, Building, New Delhi H.No. 8020698, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Telangana-500034 (Pan: Aanca8941N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

GHANPUR SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, (OSD), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2390/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar, Accountant, Member & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Ghanpur Solar Private Vs. Acit(Osd) Delhi Limited C.R. Building, Prasad & Prasad, Ca,S I.P. Estate, New Delhi Flat No.301 M.J. Towers H- N0. 8-2-698 Road No.12 Banjara Hills Hyderabad Telangana Pan No. Aagcg1692R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92BSection 92C

MPHASIS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue and the assessment order passed is quashed

ITA 1081/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mphasis Limited, First Floor, Laurel Building, Deputy Commissioner Of Bagmane Technology Park, Cv Income Tax-Circle Vs. Raman Nagar, Karnataka 560093 4(1)(1), Bangalore Pan – Aaacb6820C Appellant Respondent : Shri. K R Vasudevan Advocate & Shri Assessee By Ankur Pd : Dr. Divya K. J - Cit Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-04-2026

For Respondent: Shri. K R Vasudevan Advocate & Shri

Section 10ASection 254Section 92C

JAMSHED NAVAL KARANJIA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3508/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69Section 69C

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2073/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43BSection 92C

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2072/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43BSection 92C

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2071/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43BSection 92C

3I INFOTECH LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 15 (1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1169/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am M/S. 31 Infotech Limited, Dcit, Circle 15(1)(2) Tower No.5, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. International Infotech Park, Maharishi Karve Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aaaci5250Q (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ved K. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 928

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3689/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmondelez India Foods Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Mumbai- Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, 8 Tower-3 (Wing C), One 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar International Cente Bhavan, Maharshi (Formerly Indiabulls Finance Karve Road, Mumbai- Centre) Parel, Mumbai- 400020 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc0460H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakker & Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Pcit, Mumbai-8 (‘The Ld. Pcit’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 263

TREND MICRO AUSTRALIA PROPRIETARY LIMITED,AUSTRALIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT. TAX 3(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, assessment order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2730/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 2730/धिल्ली/2023 (नि.व. 2020-21) Trend Micro Australia Proprietary Ltd., Level-15, 1-Pacific Highway North, Sydney Nsw 2060, Australia 2060 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaect-4864-E बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate, Ms. Reema Grewal, Chartered Accountant & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Advocate प्रनिवादीद्वारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 20/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate, Ms. Reema GrewalFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)

HOME CREDIT INTERNATIONAL A.S.,CZECH REPUBLIC vs. ASSISTANTDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3846/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 282

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES (INDIA) DEVELOPMENT CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 2099/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. M/S. Manhattan Associates (India) Circle – 4(1)(1), Development Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. 5Th & 6Th Floor, B1 Block, Brigade Tech Gardens Brigade Properties Pvt. Ltd., Sez, Brookfield, Kundalahalli S.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore – 566 037. Pan: Aadcm 0727 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nirmal Mathew, Advocate Respondent : Dr. Divya K. J, Cit(Dr)(Itat), By Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri. Nirmal Mathew, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250

MITESH SURESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 5593/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmitesh Suresh Shah Vs. Ito-International Tax 401, 4Th Floor, Blue Heaven, Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai Nehru Road, Vakola, Kautilya Bhavan, Pipeline, Santacruz (East), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400055 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Auxps9395K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed U/S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction

Section 144CSection 147Section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) VADODARA, VADODARA vs. AHMED MAHOMED PANDOR, BHARUCH

ITA 1667/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1667/Ahd/2025 – By Revenue 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1602/Ahd/2025 – By Assessee (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17) 1. The Acit 1. Ahmed Mahomed बनाम (Internation Taxation) Pandor / Vadodara – 390 007 Moti Masjid Falia V/S. Jitali Ankleshwar Bharuch – 393 001 2. Ahmed Mahomed 2. The Acit Circle Pandor Int. Txn, Ankleshwar Vadodara – 390 007 Bharuch – 393 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cwupp 2469 N (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (") यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Are Cross-Appeals One By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

AHMED MAHOMED PANDOR,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TXN., VADODARA, BARODA

ITA 1602/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), RANGE 2(3)(2) - MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed in terms of above directions

ITA 8248/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankargemological Institute Of Vs. Acit (International America Taxation), Range - 5345, The Robert Mouawad 2(3)(2) Mumbai Campus, Armada Drive, Room No. 610, 6Th Carlsbad, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, California - 092008 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aadcg7962K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistry-Sr. Adv./Gunjan Kakkad Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 03.09.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2020-21. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 244ASection 92C

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)- 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Krishna KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar, Shri Karan Jain

Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

MERLYN LENIN FERNANDES,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6862/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethmerlyn Lenin Fernandes Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Kautilya A-101, First Floor, Surbhi Co- Vs. Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Thakkar Complex, Malad West, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 Mumbai 400095 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopf9220B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Shezad Sayed CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7381/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am Ca (India) Technologies Private The Income Tax Officer-14(1)(4) Limited Room No. 458, Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, Vibgyor Tower, Mumbai-400 020 Plot C-62, G-Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 4971 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 18.09.2018 Of First Appellate Authority, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 26.02.2026 Has Submitted That The Dispute Has Been Resolved Through Mutual Agreement Procedure (“Map”) & The Assessee Has Accepted The Map Resolution, Hence, Request Has Been Made For Withdrawal Of The Appeal. The Contents Of The Said Letter Are As Under: Dear Sir, Re: Ca (India) Technologies Private Limited ('Ca India' Or 'Appellant') Permanent Account Number ('Pan'): Aaacc4971D Assessment Year ('Ay'): 2014-15 Appeal No. Ita 7381/Mum/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Showing 1–20 of 784 · Page 1 of 40

...