709 (Hyderabad); (iii). Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nitin Nema

468 ITR 105Supreme Court of India2024#25076 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 148opportunity of being heardsection 147document

Judgments citing 709 (Hyderabad); (iii). Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nitin Nema

Ramdev Munadhda, Warangal vs. Income Tax Office Ward -1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1837/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

…upon certain judicial pronouncements, viz. (i). Vasuki Global Industrial Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (2025) 180 taxmann.com 16 (Gujarat); (ii). ACIT Vs. Rajiv Gupta (2025) 180 taxmann.com 709 (Hyderabad); (iii). Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nitin Nema (2024) 468 ITR 105 (SC); (iv). Pramila Mahadev Tadkase Vs. Income Tax Officer (2024) 468 ITR 275 (Karnataka); and (v). Ratan Bej Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2024) 467 ITR 288 (Jharkhand). Per Contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short, “DR") submitted that as the AO at the stage of initiating the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act wa…

Siddhartha Agencies, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

ITA 123/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 250

…ferent between Sales, Purchases, Direct and 3 Siddhartha Agencies, Secunderabad. Indirect exports and therefore erred in adding the entire purchases of Rs. 3,78,14,023/-which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. Chief C.I.T vs. Nitin Nema (468 ITR 105). 6. The learned CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the order u/s.250 of the I.T Act, 1961 without application of mind on an non-existing entity while accepting the facts that the partnership firm under PAN No: ABDFS6096A was dissolved on 31.12.2008 (Page 36/Para 8/ Decision) and in the process passing an order on an non-existing entity which is illegal, Bad…

Amaan Naeem Akhtar Ansari, Mira Road East vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

ITA 407/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainamaan Naeem Akhtar Vs. Ito, Ward 22(1)(1) Ansari Piramal Chambers, 803, A-B, Bldg No. 18, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai Fortune Heights, - Ghodbunder Road, Shanti Vidyanagar, Mira Road (E). Pan/Gir No. Bfspa0396B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Amaan Naeem Akhtar Vs. ITO, Ward 22(1)(1) Ansari Piramal Chambers, 803, A-B, Bldg No. 18, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai Fortune Heights, - Ghodbunder Road, Shanti Vidyanagar, Mira Road (E). PAN/GIR No. BFSPA0396B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rohidas Lokhande Revenue by Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 01.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of…