ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

ITA 696/HYD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 June 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)46 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowing others, and dismissed others. Key decisions involved reversing findings on cash payments for property purchases and upholding CIT(A) decisions on other matters.

What were the facts?

The appeals concerned assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, arising from search and seizure operations. The Assessing Officer made various additions, including unaccounted cash receipts, capital gains, and invoking Section 50C.

What were the issues?

The main issues revolved around the validity of assessments post-search, additions for unaccounted cash receipts, capital gains, and the applicability of specific sections like 50C and 115BBE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 50C,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan
For Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Hearing: 18.06.2024Pronounced: 27.06.2024

PER BENCH : This bunch of eight appeals, four by different Assessee’s and four by the Revenue, are di

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 132

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →