KIRAN KUMAR KAMMILI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 234/VIZ/2022Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 August 2026AY 2018-198 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed indexed cost of improvement for interior works, but the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed it due to a change in the payee mentioned by the assessee. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the AO's decision.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in the payee details provided by the assessee and decided to set aside the assessment order. The AO is directed to reconsider the claim after the assessee provides further evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the indexed cost of improvement for interior works is allowable as a deduction, and if the AO properly verified the claim despite a change in payee details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(5),Section 55

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

PER MANJUNATHA G, AM This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed by the Ld.Income Tax Officer, Ward International Taxation, Visakhapatnam vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022- 23/1042983138(1) dated 09.05.2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 in pursuant to the directio

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 144C(5)

All 823 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →