What is CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P) authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

How many judgments cite CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)?

299 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P) (294 ITR 49), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153A, Section 132, Section 153C, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 292C.

CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P) (294 ITR 49)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…reement the sale deed is executed. But it is not necessary that the price stated in the agreement will be price shown in the sale deed”. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT, Salem vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram vide judgment dated 14/09/2007 reported in 294 ITR 49 it was held that “the fact as to the actual sale price of the property, the implication of the contrary statements made by the vendor or whether reliance could be placed on the loose sheets recovered in the course of the raid were all question of fact. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the order of the High Court for having dismissed the Revenu…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderbad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…reement the sale deed is executed. But it is not necessary that the price stated in the agreement will be price shown in the sale deed”. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT, Salem vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram vide judgment dated 14/09/2007 reported in 294 ITR 49 it was held that “the fact as to the actual sale price of the property, the implication of the contrary statements made by the vendor or whether reliance could be placed on the loose sheets recovered in the course of the raid were all question of fact. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the order of the High Court for having dismissed the Revenu…

Babulal Roshanlal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 196/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…rroborative evidence found during the course of search to show that these assessee’s were in receipt of on- money and the notings made on ‘loose papers’ has no evidentiary value as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. PV Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC); PCIT vs. Nishant Construction (P.) Ltd., [2019] 101 taxmann.com 180 (SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of M/s. Supreme Industries ltd., in ITA.No.1224 of 2011 order dated 17.01.2013. 9 ITA.No.193/NAG./2024 5.2.3. He further submitted that the loose papers on which belief of escapement of income chargeable to tax has been de…

Patni Housing Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…rroborative evidence found during the course of search to show that these assessee’s were in receipt of on- money and the notings made on ‘loose papers’ has no evidentiary value as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. PV Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC); PCIT vs. Nishant Construction (P.) Ltd., [2019] 101 taxmann.com 180 (SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of M/s. Supreme Industries ltd., in ITA.No.1224 of 2011 order dated 17.01.2013. 9 ITA.No.193/NAG./2024 5.2.3. He further submitted that the loose papers on which belief of escapement of income chargeable to tax has been de…

Taradevi Babulal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 193/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…rroborative evidence found during the course of search to show that these assessee’s were in receipt of on- money and the notings made on ‘loose papers’ has no evidentiary value as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. PV Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC); PCIT vs. Nishant Construction (P.) Ltd., [2019] 101 taxmann.com 180 (SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of M/s. Supreme Industries ltd., in ITA.No.1224 of 2011 order dated 17.01.2013. 9 ITA.No.193/NAG./2024 5.2.3. He further submitted that the loose papers on which belief of escapement of income chargeable to tax has been de…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Benglauru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…ere is allegation of understatement on concealment in the consideration shown. Here we find that revenue has failed to discharge the burden cast on it. 19. We also place reliance from the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kalyansundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC) in which allegations of on money transaction on the basis of non-convincing loose sheets found during the course of search and conflicting statement of the seller, was deleted by the Tribunal and the same was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court." 8. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Parveen Juneja [IT Appeal No. 57…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Guntur vs. Yerra Rajesh, Kothapet

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 417/VIZ/2024[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.417/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Acit – Central Circle – 1 V. Yerra Rajesh 12-23-3, Kothapet -522001 Central Revenue Building Andhra Pradesh Kannavarithota Guntur – 522001 [Pan: Aagpy3466N] Andhra Pradesh

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…ts of acceptance of such transactions between the sellers and buyer, i.e. between two parties to transaction. 6. The CIT(A) has erred in accepting the submissions of the assessee that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kalyanasundaram 294 ITR 49 applicable to the facts of the case. In the decision referred, the sellers retracted from the statements given by them, but in the present case none of the sellers retracted from their sworn statements, but filed returns of income, by admitting additional income and paid relevant taxes pertaining to the issue. Thus, the leamed CIT(A) has wrongly a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2753/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. [Para 6] In view of the above, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal and required no interference." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 has confirmed the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by dismissing the Departmental Appeal. 37. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) held as under :- “After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against the assessee, the case of the assessee…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2752/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. [Para 6] In view of the above, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal and required no interference." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 has confirmed the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by dismissing the Departmental Appeal. 37. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) held as under :- “After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against the assessee, the case of the assessee…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2751/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. [Para 6] In view of the above, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal and required no interference." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 has confirmed the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by dismissing the Departmental Appeal. 37. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) held as under :- “After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against the assessee, the case of the assessee…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Copany Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2473/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. [Para 6] In view of the above, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal and required no interference." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 has confirmed the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by dismissing the Departmental Appeal. 37. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) held as under :- “After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against the assessee, the case of the assessee…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2472/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. [Para 6] In view of the above, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal and required no interference." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 has confirmed the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by dismissing the Departmental Appeal. 37. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) held as under :- “After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against the assessee, the case of the assessee…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2324/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. [Para 6] In view of the above, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal and required no interference." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 has confirmed the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by dismissing the Departmental Appeal. 37. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) held as under :- “After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against the assessee, the case of the assessee…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2323/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. [Para 6] In view of the above, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal and required no interference." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 has confirmed the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by dismissing the Departmental Appeal. 37. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) held as under :- “After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against the assessee, the case of the assessee…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2322/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. [Para 6] In view of the above, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal and required no interference." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 has confirmed the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by dismissing the Departmental Appeal. 37. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) held as under :- “After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against the assessee, the case of the assessee…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2321/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. [Para 6] In view of the above, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal and required no interference." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 has confirmed the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court by dismissing the Departmental Appeal. 37. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) held as under :- “After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against the assessee, the case of the assessee…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii…

CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)

What is CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P) authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderabad

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderbad

Babulal Roshanlal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

Patni Housing Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

Taradevi Babulal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Nagpur

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Benglauru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Guntur vs. Yerra Rajesh, Kothapet

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Copany Pvt Ltd, Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Private Limited, Delhi

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -3, New Delhi

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi