MAJID KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 510/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 November 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee offered income under two heads, but the AO considered only one. The Tribunal held that if income offered under the 'real estate business activity' head is considered, the difference is explained. Therefore, the additions sustained by the lower authorities were deleted.

What were the facts?

A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted, leading to a notice under Section 153C. The assessee filed a return admitting a certain income. During scrutiny, the AO noticed a difference between income disclosed under Section 132(4) and the return filed, leading to additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in not considering income offered under the head 'income on estimate basis from real estate business activity' when making additions for discrepancies in gross receipts/expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153C,Section 132(4),Section 143(3),Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Majid Khan, C/o. P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(3), Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →