PAVANI DUTT,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, VISAKHAPATNAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a non-resident, provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the funds used for property purchase, including stamp duty, were remitted from outside India. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 were not sustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a non-resident, purchased property in India and made payments from funds remitted from outside India. The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained investment, including stamp duty charges and property payments, which were upheld by the DRP.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition for unexplained investment in property purchase is valid when the source of funds is from outside India for a non-resident assessee, and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144C,Section 69,Section 10(4),Section 5(2),Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 149
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.
PER MANJUNATHA G. :
The above appeals are filed by the assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 respectively, in pursuance to the Directions dated 12.12.2024 of the Disputes Resolution Panel-1 [in 2 ITA.Nos.158 & 159/Hyd./2025 short “DRP”], Bengaluru passed u/sec.144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. Since common issues are involved in both these assessee’s appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated or
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 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
