CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

87 ITR 349Supreme Court of India1973#124 most cited

What is CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull authority for?

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

525

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull · 87 ITR 349 · Section 68 · Section 69A · onus of proof · burden of proof · apparent is not real · genuineness of transaction · cash credit · unexplained money · suspicion not evidence · sufficiency of evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 69CSection 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementdumb documentscreditworthiness of the creditorbogus long term capital gainsection 132(4a)section 292csection 132(4)loose papersaddition under section 68section 10(38)section 127on-money

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

Shri Sharad Jaiswal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 776/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Sharad Jaiswal, Income Tax Officer 1(1), G-106/69, Shivaji Nagar, Vs. Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Akgpj5075N Revenue By Shri Rajiv Jain, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 11.7.2018 Date Of 26.7.2018 Pronouncement

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…eness and creditworthiness of both the cash creditors and in the given facts and given circumstances of the case the Ld.A.O was not justified in making addition u/s 68 of the Act. Our view find support by the judgments in the case of CIT vs Daulat Ramatmull 87 ITR 349 (Supreme Court), CIT vs Navedram Ahuja 290 ITR 453 (MP). 10. In view of our above discussions and in the totality of the facts no addition was called for u/s 68 of the Act for sum of Rs.40,00,000/- received by the assessee against agreement for sale of land. Ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed. Ground No.2: “ That on the facts and in the ci…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ashesh Brothers, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6742/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ninghshen
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ee has furnished documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases, it is for the department to prove that the apparent is not real. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Daulat Ram Rawatmull, [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC). The learned Authorised Representative submitted, in course of proceedings before the Departmental Authorities the assessee has furnished quantitative tally of purchase, consumption and sale and no discrepancy was found in such statement. Therefore, the fact that the assessee had purchased the 13 M/s. Ashesh Brothers goods has been proved. I…

Shri Johri Lal Sodhani, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1046/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…ses. For this reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd 230 ITR 580 (SC) It was held that the burden of showing that the apparent state of affairs was not the real one lay heavily on the department. CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) The fact that an assessee was unable to satisfy the authorities as to the source from which the depositor derived money cannot be used against 11 Shri Johari Lal Sodhani vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur assessee. The onus of proving that the apparent was not real is on the party who claims it to be so. From the simple fact that the explanat…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the assessee. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumit Mittal, New Delhi

ITA 6123/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276CSection 68

…CIT vs K.S. Kannan Kunhi87 ITR 3958. 8. Credit in the name of close relative, the assessee cannot be presumed to have knowledge of the source from which depositor has obtained money. Tola Ram Daga vs CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam) and CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mal 87 ITR 349 9. CIT vs Pithampur Conzima (P) Ud.(2000) 244 ITR 442 (MP High Court Where in appeal before Tribunal, the assessee showed that the credit given to the assessee company were duly declared by the creditors in their respective returns, whereupon the Tribunal concluded that the investment in the assessee firm was duly explained and no addition…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumit Mittal, New Delhi

ITA 6122/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276CSection 68

…CIT vs K.S. Kannan Kunhi87 ITR 3958. 8. Credit in the name of close relative, the assessee cannot be presumed to have knowledge of the source from which depositor has obtained money. Tola Ram Daga vs CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam) and CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mal 87 ITR 349 9. CIT vs Pithampur Conzima (P) Ud.(2000) 244 ITR 442 (MP High Court Where in appeal before Tribunal, the assessee showed that the credit given to the assessee company were duly declared by the creditors in their respective returns, whereupon the Tribunal concluded that the investment in the assessee firm was duly explained and no addition…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…book of account. 15. To understand the rationale behind this provision, it is only apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta v Daulat Ram Rawatmull [reported in (1973) Vol.87 ITR 349], it has been set out therein as under: “Before dealing with the facts of this case, we may advert to the principles which should govern the decisions of the court in such like cases. Findings on questions of pure fact arrived at by the Tribunal are not to be disturbed by the High Court on a reference unless it appears that there was no evidence b…

Venu Myneni, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-II, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. B.K. Vishnu Priya, DR
Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…es into the bank account for which the source was income earned outside India and relied on the following decisions: a) S. Hastimal Vs CIT (1963) [49 ITR 273] (Mad); b) Tolaram Daga Vs CIT (1966) [59 ITR 632] (Assam.); c) CIT Vs Daulat Ram Ramatmull, (1973) [87 ITR 349] (SC); d) Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (1976) [103, ITR 344] (Pat); e) Rohini Builders (2002) [256 ITR 360] (Guj); f) Nemichand Kothari Vs CIT (2003) [264 ITR 254]; g) CIT Vs HS Builders Pvt Ltd (2012) [254 CTR (Raj) 542]; 3. Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to submit a remand report on the written submissions filed by assessee. With regard to the d…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the assessee. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘आई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. AAACR1789G 2 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ITO19…

ITO, Ward-2(3), Durgapur, Kolkata vs. M/S Height Insurance Services Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2266/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Height Insurance Ward-2(3), R/No.10/21, Services Ltd., Room 7Th Floor, Aayakar No.319,3Rd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Kamalaya Centre, 156A, Chowringhee Square, Lenin Sarani, Kolakta-13 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacch 0943 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2016 In Case No. 188/Cit(A)-14/Wd-1(1)/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Solitary Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive Section 37 R.W 40(A)(Ia) Disallowances / Addition Of ₹66,18,00,000/- Pertaining To Assessee’S Service Charges Paid To M/S Golden Trust Financial Services (Gtfs) Hereafter For Having Acted As Its Agent. It’S Next Two Averments Are That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Examining Assessee’S Exclusive Method Of Accounting In Service Tax Receivable On Output Services As Against Inclusive Method Of Service Tax

Section 143(3)Section 37

…inancial Statements of GTFS for the assessment year 2011-12 for ready reference. These were placed on Page Nos. 243 to 245 of the Paper Book attached with his written submissions. It was as early as in 1973 that the Apex Court, in Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (1973) 87 ITR 349, laid down the law for the onus when any party to a dispute disagreed with whatever was shown as apparent. The Supreme Court held that the onus of proving what was apparent was not real lay with the party that claimed it to be so. There should be some direct nexus between the conclusions of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned and the prim…

Padala V.V. Satyanarayana Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 187/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Nallamilli Venkatakrishna Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 186/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Mailavarapu Anantha Naga Narasimha Srikanth vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 185/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Tetali Srinivasa Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 184/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Kovvuri Venkata Rama Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 183/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Sabbella V.V. Satyanarayana Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 182/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Kovvuri Vijaya Sudhakara Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 181/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Tadii China Venkata Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 180/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…

Kovvuri Adl Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 179/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brajesh Kuimar Agarwal 369 ITR 171 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S. Narayanappa Vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Maulla 87 ITR 349 ad Laxmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that Mr. Y. Joji Reddy has entered into an agreement for purchase of land with the original owners Shri Kantimohanti Surya Prakasa Rao and 6 others for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,50,000./- and got it registered for 4.…