CIT v. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi (207)

292 ITR 624High Court2007#5246 most cited

What is CIT v. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi (207) authority for?

When an assessee is a co-owner of property, they cannot be treated indifferently, and it would be a travesty of justice to single out one co-owner for an enhanced assessment on the same property.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi · section 143 · section 143(3) · co-owner · indifferent treatment · travesty of justice · assessment procedure · detailed scrutiny assessment · total income

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

Issues it is cited on

section 143section 14section 143(3)total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi (207)

Meheru Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1807/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…that once transaction has been accepted in the hands of other co-owners, similar treatment should be given in the hands of present assessee also, as per the mandate of the law. Reliance was placed in this regard on the judgments in CIT vs Kumararani Meenakshi 292 ITR 624 (Mad), Shri Madhu Tyagi vs DCIT 19 SOT 612 Del, Jaswantrai vs CWT 107 ITR 477 at page 481 (P&H). It was also argued by the Ld. Counsel that incorrect sale instances have been adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), and if correct sale instances are adopted, it would be clear that similar properties have been sold at a much lesser rate and, therefore, no addit…

Dilnawaz Sam Variava, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

The appeals are allowed

ITA 5216/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…that once transaction has been accepted in the hands of other co-owners, similar treatment should be given in the hands of present assessee also, as per the mandate of the law. Reliance was placed in this regard on the judgments in CIT vs Kumararani Meenakshi 292 ITR 624 (Mad), Shri Madhu Tyagi vs DCIT 19 SOT 612 Del, Jaswantrai vs CWT 107 ITR 477 at page 481 (P&H). It was also argued by the Ld. Counsel that incorrect sale instances have been adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), and if correct sale instances are adopted, it would be clear that similar properties have been sold at a much lesser rate and, therefore, no addit…

CIT v. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi (207) (292 ITR 624) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax