Addl.CIT v. P.Durgamma

166 ITR 776High Court1987#19433 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 150(1)section 170section 153(3)section 150section 17section 260asection 153creassessment proceedingssearch and seizuresection 153section 15section 25

Judgments citing Addl.CIT v. P.Durgamma

Sri Rajkumar C(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1381/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Deepesh Waghale, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V..P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153Section 153CSection 260A

…s significant and only HUF which had suffered in the past would deem to continue to be HUF till an order of partition u/s 171(1) is recorded. Similar view has been held by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl.CIT v. P.Durgamma reported in 166 ITR 776 and the order of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri.K.Ramesh Reddy HUF, in ITA No.1057/Bang/2017 (order dated 20.09.2021). The relevant finding of the Tribunal in case of Sri.K.Ramesh Reddy HUF (supra), which had followed the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s.Lakkanna & Sons (supra), reads…

Sri Rajkumar C(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1380/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Deepesh Waghale, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V..P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153Section 153CSection 260A

…s significant and only HUF which had suffered in the past would deem to continue to be HUF till an order of partition u/s 171(1) is recorded. Similar view has been held by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl.CIT v. P.Durgamma reported in 166 ITR 776 and the order of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri.K.Ramesh Reddy HUF, in ITA No.1057/Bang/2017 (order dated 20.09.2021). The relevant finding of the Tribunal in case of Sri.K.Ramesh Reddy HUF (supra), which had followed the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s.Lakkanna & Sons (supra), reads…

Sri Rajkumar C(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1379/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Deepesh Waghale, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V..P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153Section 153CSection 260A

…s significant and only HUF which had suffered in the past would deem to continue to be HUF till an order of partition u/s 171(1) is recorded. Similar view has been held by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl.CIT v. P.Durgamma reported in 166 ITR 776 and the order of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri.K.Ramesh Reddy HUF, in ITA No.1057/Bang/2017 (order dated 20.09.2021). The relevant finding of the Tribunal in case of Sri.K.Ramesh Reddy HUF (supra), which had followed the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s.Lakkanna & Sons (supra), reads…

Shri. Sajal Radhikamohan Kar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-27 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6476/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54

…aforesaid conviction is supported by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Kantilal Ambalal (HUF) (1991) 192 ITR 376 (Guj) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. P. Durgamma (1987) 166 ITR 776 (AP). Also, by relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Tirlochan Singh Vs. CIT & Anr. (2009) 316 ITR 39 (P&H) had taken a similar view. Backed by the aforesaid facts r.w the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the observations of the CIT(A) that the prope…

Addl.CIT v. P.Durgamma (166 ITR 776) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax