KARUTURI VEERA VENKATA RAVI PRASAD,KOVVUR MANDAL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not reconcile the entries in the seized documents with the income declared in the returns for the HUF and his father's name. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld.
What were the facts?
During a search operation, loose sheets and diaries detailing the assessee's finance business were seized. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained investment in fixed deposits and income from the finance business, totaling Rs. 36,65,800, as these amounts were not declared in the return.
What were the issues?
Whether additions made by the AO based on seized documents related to finance business are sustainable when the assessee claims the income was offered in the hands of HUF and father, and whether the seized documents are admissible as evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Society v. UOI493 citing394 ITR 220 · 2017 · SC
- CBI v. V.C. Shukla442 citing3 SCC 410 · 1998 · SC
- CIT v. Girish Chaudhary175 citing296 ITR 619 · 2008 · HC
- CIT v. Kulwant Rai142 citing291 ITR 36 · 2007 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :
The captioned appeals are filed by a single assessee viz., ‘Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad’ against the separate orders dated 10.03.2025, 10.03.2025 and 11.03.2025 of the learned Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, rela
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 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026