CIT v. K Jayakumar

35 Taxmann.com 179High Court2013#5602 most cited

What is CIT v. K Jayakumar authority for?

CPWD rates should not be blindly adopted for determining the cost of construction unless there is similarity with State PWD rates, considering geographical factors, workforce availability, and material costs.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K Jayakumar · section 132 · section 143(3) · section 69B · unexplained investment · CPWD rates · PWD rates · cost of construction · valuation · DVO

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

section 69bunexplained investmentsection 132document

Judgments citing CIT v. K Jayakumar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Periwal Enterprises Private Limited, Tilak Marg

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 213/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.174/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) M/S Periwal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle -2, बनाम/ B-38, Sagar Apartments Ludhiana, Punjab. 110001. Vs. 6 Tilak Marg, Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0026-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.213/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Dcit, Central Circle -2, M/S Periwal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana. B-38, Sagar Apartments, 6 Tilak Marg Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0026-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal(Adv.). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 29-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal(Adv.). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

…rebate for difference in CPWD rates and PWD rates which was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the same was not fully supported by documentary evidences. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Mansingha (80 Taxmann.com 258) to hold that local PWD rates were to be applied and therefore, further rebate of 15% was allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned addition was re- computed as under: - Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Value Adopted by DVO 8,38,47,700 Value as Declared by the Assessee -5,55,99,303 15% reduction in value as per the decision of Hon’ble…

Periwal Enterprises Private Limited B-38, Sagar Apartments, 6 Tilak Marg Delhi, Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, Punjab

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 174/CHANDI/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.174/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) M/S Periwal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle -2, बनाम/ B-38, Sagar Apartments Ludhiana, Punjab. 110001. Vs. 6 Tilak Marg, Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0026-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.213/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Dcit, Central Circle -2, M/S Periwal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana. B-38, Sagar Apartments, 6 Tilak Marg Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0026-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal(Adv.). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 29-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal(Adv.). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

…rebate for difference in CPWD rates and PWD rates which was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the same was not fully supported by documentary evidences. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Mansingha (80 Taxmann.com 258) to hold that local PWD rates were to be applied and therefore, further rebate of 15% was allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned addition was re- computed as under: - Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Value Adopted by DVO 8,38,47,700 Value as Declared by the Assessee -5,55,99,303 15% reduction in value as per the decision of Hon’ble…

M/S. Golden Tulip Hospitality Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 264 & 265/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2019-20 M/s Golden Tulip Hospitality Vs. ACIT, Central Circle Pvt. Ltd., Hyderpora Bye Pass Srinagar Srinagar 190014 [PAN: AAFCG2464Q] (Respondent) (Appellant Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA & V.S. Aggarwal, ITP : Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing : 31.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: Both the captioned appeals have been filed by the ass…

M/S. Golden Tulip Hospitality Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &
Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 264 & 265/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2019-20 M/s Golden Tulip Hospitality Vs. ACIT, Central Circle Pvt. Ltd., Hyderpora Bye Pass Srinagar Srinagar 190014 [PAN: AAFCG2464Q] (Respondent) (Appellant Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA & V.S. Aggarwal, ITP : Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing : 31.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: Both the captioned appeals have been filed by the ass…

Ushaben Ambalal Oza, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(15), Ahmedabad

In the result, the impugned

ITA 2028/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 250Section 50C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA No. 2028 /Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 Ushaben Ambalal Oza, ITO, 401, Harsh Appartments Ward-3(3)(15), Nr. Himali Tower, Kenyug Vs Ambawadi, Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad-380015 (Respondent) PAN: AAAPO6352P (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. Revenue by: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 30-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 17-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL,…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 379/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 378/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 375/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 374/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 499/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 498/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT(, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…or the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assesses for the assessment year 2006-07." 3.9.8 It was submitted that similar views akin to the above had been upheld in CIT vs K Jayakumar [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 179 and recently by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mansingha [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 258. In addition, the assesses have consistently reiterated that the DVO's report suffers from the following grave factual infirmities: • The building has foundation in column footing and not raft footing. In raft footing the entire coverage of the building will…

Soumys Exports (Since Dissolved), Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Tiruppur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, JCITFor Respondent: 05.03.2018
Section 250(6)Section 45(4)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.288/CHNY/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs The ACIT, M/s. Soumys Exports (Since Circle 1, Dissolved) represented by its Tiruppur erstwhile partner Mr. M. Muthunatarajan, 374/4, No.15, Velampalayam Main Road, Anupparpalayam, Pudur, Tiruppur – 641 652 PAN: AALFS7177B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri K…

Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1492/BANG/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Narayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1490 to 1492/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri C. Shankar Reddy, Advocate, The Deputy Commissioner of Income No. 16, Behind Kapali Tax, Talkies, Central Circle -1(1), Vs. 6th Main Road, Gandhinagar, No. 324, Central Revenue Building, Bangalore. Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: ADFPR 7952L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narayana Murthy, CA Respondent by : Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I) Date of hearing : 09.02.2017 Date of Pronounce…

Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1491/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Narayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1490 to 1492/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri C. Shankar Reddy, Advocate, The Deputy Commissioner of Income No. 16, Behind Kapali Tax, Talkies, Central Circle -1(1), Vs. 6th Main Road, Gandhinagar, No. 324, Central Revenue Building, Bangalore. Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: ADFPR 7952L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narayana Murthy, CA Respondent by : Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I) Date of hearing : 09.02.2017 Date of Pronounce…

Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1490/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Narayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1490 to 1492/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri C. Shankar Reddy, Advocate, The Deputy Commissioner of Income No. 16, Behind Kapali Tax, Talkies, Central Circle -1(1), Vs. 6th Main Road, Gandhinagar, No. 324, Central Revenue Building, Bangalore. Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: ADFPR 7952L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narayana Murthy, CA Respondent by : Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I) Date of hearing : 09.02.2017 Date of Pronounce…