1) CIT v. Geetadevi Pasari

152 ITD 887Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#22716 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 356,934 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Judgments citing 1) CIT v. Geetadevi Pasari

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Kohinoor Hatcheries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 574/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bledcit, Central-2(1), Vs. D. Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8276 R Dcit, Central-2(1), D. Raghava Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Banjara Hilld, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8275 N Dcit, Central-2(1), M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G C.O.No. 21/Hyd/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 574/Hyd/2018) (Asst. Years : 2009-10) M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Dcit, Central-2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Hyderabad Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Devdas – CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…he developer, therefore the Assessing Officer is not correct in applying the ratio of the said judgment to the assessee’s case. He relied on the following case- laws:- 1) CIT Vs. Geetadevi Pasari [(2009) 17 DTR 280 (Bom.)] 2) ACIT Vs. R. Srinivasa Rao 9(2015) 152 ITD 887 (Hyd.)] 3) Binjusaria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2015) 40 ITR 230 (Trib. – Hyd.) 4) Fibars Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [(2014) 98 DTR 281 (Hyd.)] ITA No.574/HYD/2018 & C.O.No. 21/HYD/2018 (D. Venkateswara Rao & others) 5) S. Ranjith Reddy Vs. DCIT [(2013) 95 DTR 283 6) P. Prathima Reddy Vs. ITO [(2012) 54 SOT 409] 9. We have heard both th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. D Raghava Rao, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 2067/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bledcit, Central-2(1), Vs. D. Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8276 R Dcit, Central-2(1), D. Raghava Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Banjara Hilld, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8275 N Dcit, Central-2(1), M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G C.O.No. 21/Hyd/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 574/Hyd/2018) (Asst. Years : 2009-10) M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Dcit, Central-2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Hyderabad Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Devdas – CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…he developer, therefore the Assessing Officer is not correct in applying the ratio of the said judgment to the assessee’s case. He relied on the following case- laws:- 1) CIT Vs. Geetadevi Pasari [(2009) 17 DTR 280 (Bom.)] 2) ACIT Vs. R. Srinivasa Rao 9(2015) 152 ITD 887 (Hyd.)] 3) Binjusaria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2015) 40 ITR 230 (Trib. – Hyd.) 4) Fibars Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [(2014) 98 DTR 281 (Hyd.)] ITA No.574/HYD/2018 & C.O.No. 21/HYD/2018 (D. Venkateswara Rao & others) 5) S. Ranjith Reddy Vs. DCIT [(2013) 95 DTR 283 6) P. Prathima Reddy Vs. ITO [(2012) 54 SOT 409] 9. We have heard both th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. D Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 2066/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bledcit, Central-2(1), Vs. D. Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8276 R Dcit, Central-2(1), D. Raghava Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Banjara Hilld, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8275 N Dcit, Central-2(1), M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G C.O.No. 21/Hyd/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 574/Hyd/2018) (Asst. Years : 2009-10) M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Dcit, Central-2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Hyderabad Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Devdas – CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…he developer, therefore the Assessing Officer is not correct in applying the ratio of the said judgment to the assessee’s case. He relied on the following case- laws:- 1) CIT Vs. Geetadevi Pasari [(2009) 17 DTR 280 (Bom.)] 2) ACIT Vs. R. Srinivasa Rao 9(2015) 152 ITD 887 (Hyd.)] 3) Binjusaria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2015) 40 ITR 230 (Trib. – Hyd.) 4) Fibars Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [(2014) 98 DTR 281 (Hyd.)] ITA No.574/HYD/2018 & C.O.No. 21/HYD/2018 (D. Venkateswara Rao & others) 5) S. Ranjith Reddy Vs. DCIT [(2013) 95 DTR 283 6) P. Prathima Reddy Vs. ITO [(2012) 54 SOT 409] 9. We have heard both th…

1) CIT v. Geetadevi Pasari (152 ITD 887) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax