DADI UMA MAHESWARI DEVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no basis for the Assessing Officer's estimation of construction costs and progress. It also noted that the assessee had explained the sources for purchasing a flat. However, the difference between sale consideration and fair market value for a property was correctly treated as income.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was reopened following a survey. Additions were made for unexplained investment in construction and agricultural income. The CIT(A) granted partial relief on construction costs but deleted additions on agricultural income.
What were the issues?
Whether additions for unexplained investment in construction are justified without proper basis, and if sources for property purchase are adequately explained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 44AD,Section 133A,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 69C,Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PERMANJUNATHA G, AM: The above appeals are filed by the assessee, directed against separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), 11, Hyderabad (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”) tabulated herein below. Since common issues are ITA 658, 659& 660/VIZ/202
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026