RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
What were the facts?
The appeals involved additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income, capital account increases, and unexplained investments in land. The CIT(A) had partly allowed some appeals, leading to further appeals before the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether additions made by the AO regarding unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income, and unexplained investments were justified. Whether credits in a bank account were income or already accounted for in declared business income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(x),Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 2(14)(iii)(a),Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 57
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT197 citing204 ITR 631 · 1993 · SC · Read judgment
ITA Nos 591 619 700 Ramesh Babu and Others
आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member A N D Shri K. Narasimha Chari, Judicial Member S.No ITA Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 ACIT, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 PAN:ACSPN1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 ACIT, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad PAN:ACSPN1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad ACIT, Central Circle 5 2016-17 PAN:ACSPN1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 ACIT, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad PAN:ACSPN1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori ACIT, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 PAN:ACSPN1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori ACIT, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 PAN:AHBPN2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana ACIT, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Kantaben Govabhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs ITO, Ward-2, GandhinagarAhmedabad8 Apr 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for the cost of acquisition based on the 1981 valuation report, as the land was inherited. The revenue could not arbitrarily determine the income without estab...
- Smt. Aarti Sekhri, New Delhi vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi30 Sept 2021Partly Allowed
Also relies on Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and...
- Sh. Devendra Dutt Pant, Haridwar vs DCIT, UttarkahandDehradun14 Jan 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide relevant revenue records for the crucial period, leading to an adverse inference. Therefore, the Section 54B deduction claim was rejected. However, a lump sum disallo...
- ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs Raja Babu Nimmaturi, HyderabadHyderabad14 Aug 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank acco...
- Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jabalpur vs Shri Deepak Singh Banafer, JabalpurJabalpur11 Jan 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the subject land was not used for agricultural purposes in the relevant period and therefore, the exemption under Section 54B was not admissible. However, the disallowance of agricultural income wa...
More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)
- Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, BiharITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S Mama Foods, Alwar vs ACIT, Central Circle, AlwarITA 1311/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Gautam Kumar Singh, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 256/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
