AI Insights
The case involves Image Broadcasting India Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issues revolved around the disallowance of certain business expenses and the treatment of cash deposits as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had made various additions and disallowances due to the assessee's failure to substantiate its claims during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld these decisions, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to participate in earlier proceedings due to internal management changes but allowed the appeal for statistical purposes to enable a fair hearing.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315855 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
14-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB-B
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Judgement Text
" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी.,माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI MANJUNATHA G., HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Image Broadcasting India Private Limited Hyderabad PAN: AACCI4971R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) यनर्ााररती द्वारा/Assessee by: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, AR राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue by: Ms. Reema Yadav, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/ Date of Pronouncement: 14/05/2025 आदेश / ORDER प्रयत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 29.09.2023, which in turn arises from the assessment 2 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited order passed by the Assessing Officer (“the AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 28.12.2019. 2. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner Appeals (‘Ld CIT(A)’)is erroneous and bad in law 2) The Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in disposing the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant 3) The Ld CIT(A) erred in 10 percent adhoc disallowance of expenditure under the head Other expenses u/s 37 of Income tax act;1961without any basis which was incurred for the purpose of business amounting to Rs.6,79,29,682/- and making an addition of Rs.67,92,968/- as Income from Other sources. 4) The. Ld CIT(A) erred in concluding that the assessee has not discharged the onus of proving the cash deposits despite genuineness of the above expenses. 5) The Ld CIT(A) erred in disallowing an amount of Rs. 2,80,95,113/- debited under head Changes in inventories which was relating to the value of the content library 6) The Ld CIT(A) erred in concluding that the cash deposits of Rs. 2,75,89,500/-are unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of Income Tax Act,1961. 7) The Ld CIT(A) erred in concluding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the deposits as the 3 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited Assessee have submitted that the cash deposits in the bank relates to magazine sales; 8) The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and /or rescind all or any one of the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company had e-filed its return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 20.10.2017, declaring a loss of Rs.10,39,13,505/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. As the assessee company had failed to respond to the notices that were issued by the AO in the course of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the latter was constrained to frame the assessment based on the material available on record. 4. The A.O., observing that the assessee company had raised a claim for deduction of expenditure under the head “Other expenses” aggregating to Rs.6,79,29,682/-, but, had failed to substantiate the veracity of the said claim, thus, drawing support from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Transport Corporation of India [256 ITR 701] disallowed 10% of the 4 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited expenditure u/s 37 of the Act and made a consequential addition of Rs.67,92,968/-. 5. The AO further observed that the assessee company had in its Profit & Loss account for the subject year debited an amount of Rs.2,80,95,113/- under the head “Changes in Inventories”. Elaborating on the nature of its said claim for deduction it was stated by the assessee company that the value of the content or programs that were already exploited/no longer generated any revenue was written off during the year under consideration. However, as the assessee company had neither placed on record any basis for valuation of the aforesaid content at Rs.2.80 crores (approx.) nor furnished the details and breakup of the content/program which were claimed to have been written off after preserving the stock for more than 8 years, the AO disallowed its entire claim for deduction u/s 37 of the Act. 6. The AO further observed that the assessee company had during the subject year made cash deposits of Rs.2,03,55,500/- in its two bank accounts viz., (i) Account No.3573443824 with Central Bank of India, Branch: Jubilee Hills: Rs.1,31,21,500/-; 5 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited and (ii) Account No.3632002100055230 with Punjab National Bank, Branch: Somajiguda; Rs.72,34,000/-. It was observed by the AO that the assessee company had during the demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 made cash deposits of Rs.1,02,08,000/- in its aforementioned bank accounts. Also, the AO observed that the assessee company during the subject year had made cash deposits in its bank account No.3632002100056238 of Rs.72,34,000/-. As the assessee company despite being specifically queried had failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the source of the cash deposits in its bank accounts, therefore, the AO was constrained to treat the entire amount of Rs.2,75,89,500 (Rs.2,03,55,500+Rs.72,34,000) as unexplained cash deposits u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019, after making the aforesaid additions/disallowances, scaled down the loss returned by the assessee company to an amount of Rs.6,90,25,404/-. Apart from that, the addition of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act 6 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited of Rs.2.75 crores (approx.) was separately brought to tax u/s115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As is discernible from the record, the assessee company, despite having been afforded three opportunities had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) though held a firm conviction that as the assessee company was not interested in pursuing the matter, therefore, the appeal on the said count itself deserved to be dismissed, but thereafter he proceeded with and disposed of the same on merits. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) after referring to the facts as were available on the record before him found no infirmity in the view taken by the AO and upheld the respective additions/disallowances and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under: “3. During the appellant proceedings,, notices u/s 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant on the email id imagehospitals@rediffmail.com on various dates as detailed below : 7 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited Sl.No. Date of Hearing Date of Compliance Remarks 1 25.12.2020 11.01.2021 No compliance was made 2 12.04.2022 27.04.2022 No compliance was made 3. 23.08.2023 07.08.2023 No compliance was made 3.1 In response to this notice, appellant has not filed written submission in the e-filing portal of the Department as well as by of e-mail, despite having issued notices u/s 250 of the I.T. Act as stated above. The appellant has neither responded to the notices issued nor submitted any written submission in support of the grounds of appeal. 3.2. As has been stated in para 3.2 above, the appellant has not filed written submissions in response to notices issued u/s 250 of the Act. It is a matter of regret that the appellant has not chosen to avail the multiple opportunities of natural justice given. It appears that the appellant is not keen to pursue its appeal. 3.3 In the context of non-appearance and where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, the Hon'ble !TAT Hyderabad, \"B\" Bench in’ ITA No.1066/Hyd/2012, dt. 18.02.2015 in the case of M/s. Ganesh Rolling Shutters & Engg Works, Hyderabad dismissed the appeal due to repeated non-appearance by the appellant. Further, the Hon'ble !TAT Hyderabad, \"A\" Bench in ITA No.1301/Hyd/2013 dated 23.05.2014 in the case of KLN Textiles & Jewels P Ltd, Hyderabad had while dismissing the appeal of the assessee referred to the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B N Bhattacharjee & Another (118 !TR 461) (SC) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Chemipo/ vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 and in the case of CIT vs. Mu/tip/an India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 I'TD 320 (Del) and the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Courtin the case of 8 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT., reported in 223 !TR 480 (MP). Further, the Hon'ble !TAT in the same decision had stated that in cases where assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court / Tribunal have inherent powers to dismiss the appeal (Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of M/s. Chemipo/ vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009). Considering the ratios of these decisions, the appeal is deserved to be dismissed. However, on merits the appeal is adjudicated considering the facts on records. 4. During the appellant proceedings, notices u/s. 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response to the notice, the appellant has not filed written submission. In view of the above facts, I proceed to dispose the appeal of the appellant, on the basis of material available on record. 5. The appellant is an private limited filed its return of income on 21.10.2017 declaring total loss of Rs.10,39,13,505/- for the A.Y. 2017-18. The case of the appellant was selected under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 08.08.2018 to the appellant. During the assessment proceedings, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 16.02.2019, 08.08.2019 and 16.10.2019 but the appellant was not complied with the notices issued by the AO. Therefore, the AO issued show cause notice and the appellant responded by filing part details. 5.1 The appellant, M/s. Image Broadcasting India P Ltd., operates various Satellite Television channels viz., CVR News, CVR Health, CVR OM. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the appellant had claimed expenses under the head “Other expenses” at Rs.6,79,29,682/-. The appellant was asked to furnish Books of account along with supporting vouchers for the above claim of expenses. However, despite several opportunities/reminders, the appellant had not furnished the Books of account and vouchers in support of expenses claimed under the head “Other expenses” . In the absence of documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of such expenses, the AO disallowed 10% of the expenses debited an amount of Rs.6,79,29,682/- under the head ‘Other Expenses’ u/s 37 of the I.T. Act, which worked out to Rs.67,92,968/-. In 9 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited support of the disallowance, the AO relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of “the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Transport Corporation of India” [256 ITR 701]. 5.2 The AO further observed from the Profit and Loss account that the appellant had debited an amount of Rs.2,80,95,113/- under the head “Changes in inventories”. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to furnish the details of claim of “Change in inventories”. In response, it was stated by the appellant the value of library content amounting to Rs.2,80,95,113/- was charged off to Revenue as an expense as these programs or contents were preserved in Stock for more than 8 years and were no longer relevant and will not attract any revenue in the form of Advertisements or sponsors for the program. However, the appellant had not furnished the details and breakup of the content to examine the veracity of its claim. In the absence of basis of valuation of the content and its detailed breakup, the claim of Rs.2,80,95,113/- was disallowed u/s 37 of the I.T.Act. S.No. Name of the Bank and Branch Account No. Amount Deposited (Rs.) 1. Central Bank of India Jubilee Hills Branch 3573443824 1312500 2. Punjab National Bank Somajiguda 3632002100055230 7234000 20355500 3. - 3632002100056238 7234000 Total 27589500 Out of the total cash deposits of Rs.2,03,55,500/- in bank account mentioned at Sr.1 & 2, cash of Rs.102,08,000/- was deposited during the demonetization period ie 8° November 2016 to 318t December 2016. The appellant failed to prove the source of cash deposited during the F._Y. 2016-17. Hence the AO added 10 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited the cash deposits of Rs.2,75,89,500/- as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. 5.4 The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing total loss at Rs.6,90,25,404/- by giving effect to the disallowance made u/s 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.67,92,968 + Rs.2,80,95,113/- . Addition made u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits of Rs.2,75,89,500/- was charged to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the said addition, the appellant is in appeal and has raised 7 grounds which are adjudicated as under. 6. During the appellant proceedings, the appellant has not made any submission in respect of the grounds of appeal. However, the facts of the case mentioned in Form No.35 is reproduced as under: “The Assessee is a Company M/s Image Broadcasting India Private Limited has filed its return of income for the year ended 31-Mar-17 relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 28-Oct-2017 admitting a loss of Rs. 10,39,13,505/- The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS by ITO, Ward 14(1), Hyderabad to verify the expenditure claimed by the assessee in the return of income and Cash Deposits made during the year. Later the case has been transferred to DCIT, Circle 14(1),Hyderabad. The Assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 6,79,29,682/- as other expense and also debited an amount of Rs.2,80,95,113/ under the head Changes in Inventories in the return of income. Further, the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs 2,75,89,500/- in the bank accounts during the year. The Ld AO has made the following disallowances/additions: 1) Adhoc 10 percent disallowance of the Other expenses - Rs.6,79,29,682/- u/s 37 without any basis. 11 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited 2) Disal lowed the amount of Rs.2,80,95,113/- debited in the profit and loss account under the head Changes in inventories. 3) Cash deposits of Rs.2,75,89,500/- made during the financial year 2016-17 considered as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of Income Tax Act,1961. Accordingly, the Ld AO finalized the Assessment u/s 143(3) by adding an amount of Rs.6,24,77,581/- and raised a net demand of Rs.2,83,37,812/- . Aggrieved by the above adjustments, the Company prefers an appeal before your goodself.” 7. Ground no. 1 & 7 are general and hence, not adjudicated. 8. Ground no.2 & 3 are relating to disallowance of Rs.67,92,968/- being 10% of other expenses claimed by the appellant totalling to Rs.6,79,29,682/-. According to the AO, during the assessment proceedings, appellant was asked to furnish the books of accounts and supporting vouchers for the claim of other expenses of Rs.6.79 crores. However, in spite of several reminders, the appellant failed to produce the books as well as any other details. The AO relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case CIT vs. Transport Corporation of India reported in 256 ITR 701 and held that the appellant had not discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of the expenses claimed that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business of the appellant. Accordingly, 10% of such expenses claimed were disallowed. During the appellate proceedings, no further details were furnished in support of the claim of the expenditure. Therefore, | am of the opinion that the action of the AO in disallowing 10% of the expenditure claimed is fully justified. The addition made by the AO of Rs.67,92,968/- is sustained. Ground no.2 & 3 are dismissed. 9. Ground no.4 is relating to disallowance of Rs.2,80,95,113/- towards the expenditure relating changes in inventory. During the assessment proceedings, the AO asked for the details of the said expenditure. It was submitted before the 12 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited AO that the content or programs which no longer generate any revenue was charged off to revenue as expenditure. The stock of books/programs/contents which were more than 08 years old were returned off as no revenue from any advertisement or sponsors was forthcoming. As the appellant did not submit any details of valuation of content etc., the AO disallowed the entire expenditure claimed. During appellate proceedings, no details relating to the expenditure written off were produced. Hence, the addition made by the AO does not require any interference. Ground no.4 is dismissed. 10. Ground no.5 & 6 are relating to the cash deposits of Rs.2,75,89,500/- brought to tax u/s.68 of the Act. The AO has given the details of bank accounts on page 3 & 4 of the assessment order wherein cash deposits were made to the tune of Rs.2,75,89,500/-. The appellant merely stated that these deposits are relating to sale of magazines but failed to give any details. In absence of any details about the sources of these deposits, the addition made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act stands confirmed. Ground no.5 & 6 are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purpose.” 7. The assessee company being aggrieved with the CIT(A) order, has carried the matter in appeal before us. Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, learned AR (“Ld.AR”) for the assessee company, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the failure of the assessee company to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A) was for certain bonafide reasons which were beyond its control. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that 13 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited the assessee company had remained uncompliant of the notices that were issued by the CIT(A) intimating the fixation of the hearing of the appeal, on three occasions, for the reason that its accounts manager who was looking after the tax matters had left the organization in the month of July 2023. The Ld. AR submitted that it was only when the new accounts manager had joined the organization, the assessee company gathered about the dismissal of its appeal by an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that as the failure on the part of the assessee company to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A) had crept in for bonafide reasons, therefore, the matter in all fairness be restored to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee appellant. The Ld.AR to buttress his aforesaid contention had placed on record a letter dated 30.04.2025 of the assessee company mentioning the aforesaid facts. The Ld. A.R had drawn our attention to the audited financial statements of the assessee company for the year under consideration i.e AY 2017-18. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the additions/disallowances made by the A.O, viz. (i). ad-hoc 14 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction of “Other expenses”; (ii). disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of adjustment of inventories; and (iii). addition of the cash deposits made in the bank accounts of the assessee company, were duly accounted for in its audited books of accounts and supported by corroborative material, therefore, in all fairness matter be restored to the file of the AO so that the assessee company may support its respective claims qua the subject issues. The Ld. AR to fortify his contention had drawn our attention to the copy of the audited financial statement of the assessee company for the year under consideration. 8. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR submitted that as the assessee company despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity had adopted a lackadaisical approach and not participated in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter by way of a reasoned order had approved the additions/disallowances made by the AO. The Ld. DR submitted that as no infirmity emerges from the order of the 15 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited CIT(A), therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned authorized representatives of both parties and perused the material available on record. Before proceeding any further, we may herein observe that it is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. On the earlier occasion, the Tribunal vide its order dated 03.07.2024 had by an ex-parte order dismissed the appeal of the assessee company. However, on an application filed by the assessee company, the matter was recalled vide order passed in MA No.47/Hyd/2024 dated 24.01.2025. 10. Ostensibly, it is a matter of fact discernible from the record, that as the assessee company had failed to place on record supporting documentary evidence to substantiate its claim for deduction of expenses/source of cash deposits in its bank accounts, therefore, the AO was constrained to make the respective additions/disallowances in its case. Also, it was but for the failure on the part of the assessee company, to participate in 16 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited the proceedings before the CIT(A), that had resulted to the dismissal of its appeal by an ex-parte order. 11. Although the explanation of the assessee company regarding the reason as to why it had remained uncompliant in the proceedings before the CIT(A) would only come to its rescue to justify the failure on its part to effect compliance to the notice dated 23.08.2023 intimating the fixation of the appeal on the last occasion, i.e., for 07.09.2023 (sic), but, the same cannot be stretched any further in so far the notices that were issued on the earlier two occasions i.e. notice dated 25.12.2020 and 12.04.2022. At the same time, we find some substance in the Ld. AR’s claim that as the respective additions/disallowances made by the A.O pertain to transactions that are accounted for in its audited books of accounts, therefore, in all fairness the assessee company be afforded an opportunity to substantiate the same based on corroborative material. We, thus, are of a firm conviction that in the totality of the facts involved in the present case, and considering the nature of additions/disallowances that have been made by the AO. in the absence of supporting material, which 17 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited thereafter had been summarily approved by the CIT(A) based on a mere reference of the facts discernible from the record, the matter in all fairness and interest of justice requires to be restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall in the course of the de- novo proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company which shall be at liberty to substantiate its claim for deduction of expenses/source of cash deposits in its bank accounts. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ground of appeal No.2 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. 12. As we have restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and adjudicating the other issues based on which the respective additions/disallowances made by the AO have been assailed before us which, thus, are left open. 18 ITA No.582/Hyd/2023 Image Broadcasting India Private Limited 13. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid deliberations. …..मई, 2025 को खुली अदालत में सुनाया गया आदेश। Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- Sd/- (रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्याधयक सदस्य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 14th May, 2025 #*L.Rama, SPS Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 M/s Image Broadcasting India Private Limited, 8-2- 293/82/J III/573/J Road No.82, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1), IT Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 3 The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad 4 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Legal Requirements
₹1
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026