CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society

397 ITR 344Supreme Court of India2017#22 most cited

What is CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society authority for?

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

1,589

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society · Section 153C · incriminating material · validity of notice 153C · search assessment · correlation of material to assessment year · assessment quashed · Section 153A · search and seizure · post-search assessment

Also reported as

96 Taxmann.com 468250 Taxmann 225297 CTR 441156 DTR 161

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 139

Issues it is cited on

abatement of assessmentcasus omissussection 153b(1)section 113section 158bdsection 153c(1)section 153a(1)(b)section 153(1)section 132(1)panchnamasection 153bstatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Munni Entertainment P. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result all the appeals of Revenue and 14

ITA 4952/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153C

…by A.O. despite there been no incriminating material found during the course of search in respect aforesaid addition. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society reported in (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). He therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts no interference to the order of Ld. CIT(A) is called for. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal of Revenue is with respect to the quashing of assessment order 12 ITA.Nos.4952 to 4954/Del./2018 CO Nos.169 to 171…

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs.2312, 2311 & 2356/MUM/2022 (A.Ys.2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) DCIT – Central Circle – 2(4) v. Shri Mishal Nickunj Shah Room No. 802, 8th Floor {L/H of Late Shri NickunjGunvantrai Shah} 22/23, Krishna Mahal Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road Netaji Subhash Road, Marine Drive Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: ALVPS2634L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 138, 139 & 140/MUM/2022 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NOs. 2312, 2311 & 2356/MUM/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15,…

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2311/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs.2312, 2311 & 2356/MUM/2022 (A.Ys.2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) DCIT – Central Circle – 2(4) v. Shri Mishal Nickunj Shah Room No. 802, 8th Floor {L/H of Late Shri NickunjGunvantrai Shah} 22/23, Krishna Mahal Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road Netaji Subhash Road, Marine Drive Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: ALVPS2634L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 138, 139 & 140/MUM/2022 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NOs. 2312, 2311 & 2356/MUM/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15,…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai vs. Rashi Commercial Company, Mumsai

In the result, both these appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1960/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Neelkanth Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 69C

…ITA Nos. 1959 &1960/Mum/2022 1 DCIT,CC-6(1) Vs. Rashi Fincorp Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1959 & 1960/Mum/2022 s (A.Ys.2014-15 & 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Rashi Fincorp Limited Income Tax, CC-6(1) 72-A, Mittal Tower, Room No. 1905, 19th Nariman Point, Floor, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 021 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACJ2576M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Riddhi Mishra Respondent by : Neelkanth Khandelwal Date of Hea…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai vs. Rashi Fincorp Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both these appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1959/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Neelkanth Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 69C

…ITA Nos. 1959 &1960/Mum/2022 1 DCIT,CC-6(1) Vs. Rashi Fincorp Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1959 & 1960/Mum/2022 s (A.Ys.2014-15 & 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Rashi Fincorp Limited Income Tax, CC-6(1) 72-A, Mittal Tower, Room No. 1905, 19th Nariman Point, Floor, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 021 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACJ2576M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Riddhi Mishra Respondent by : Neelkanth Khandelwal Date of Hea…

DCIT Cir 4(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gemini Engi Fab Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1457/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rutuja Pawar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, D.R
Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Gemini Engi Fab Income Tax, Ltd., Circle 4(2)(1), 501, Palm Spring, Vs. Room No.642, 6th Floor, Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACG7948N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rutuja Pawar, A.R. Shri Hetal Laghve, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, D.R. Date of Hearing : 04 . 10 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22 . 12 . 2022 O R D E R…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwinkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 1324/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Hemantkumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

…ITA Nos. 132 to1324/Mum/2022 & C.O. 117 to 120/Mum/2022 1 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s Jinesh Ashwinkumar Matalia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1321 to 1324/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2011-12 to 2013-14 & 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s Jinesh Ashwinkumar Income Tax-3(3)(1) Matalia, Adarsh Classic Room No. 668, Aaykar A-302, Adarsh Vihar, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off Marve Road Malad (W) Churchgate, Mumbai 400064 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AGIPM8067F Appellan…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1)., Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwingkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 1321/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Hemantkumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

…ITA Nos. 132 to1324/Mum/2022 & C.O. 117 to 120/Mum/2022 1 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s Jinesh Ashwinkumar Matalia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1321 to 1324/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2011-12 to 2013-14 & 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s Jinesh Ashwinkumar Income Tax-3(3)(1) Matalia, Adarsh Classic Room No. 668, Aaykar A-302, Adarsh Vihar, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off Marve Road Malad (W) Churchgate, Mumbai 400064 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AGIPM8067F Appellan…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore vs. Mr. Shorff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha, Kodagu

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 997/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM ITA No.997/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 The Assistant Commissioner of Sri.Shroff Krishnarajasetty Income-tax, Central Circle Satheesha, Kaveri Textiles v. Mysuru. Ratha Beedi, Mullusoge Kodagu – 571 234. PAN : ACRPs1937P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Respondent by : Sri.Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 Date of Hearing : 17.11.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against…

M/S Shri Gurmukhdas Contractors P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT-Cenrral-1, Bhopal

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 208/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 271A

…ating material unearthed during the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment. The decision of Delhi High Court has been upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court in Singhad Technical Education Society (397 ITR 344 SC). In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussions, no addition under section 68 was warranted in absence of incriminating evidence, in the abated assessment. We hold so. In the result the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 21. We further find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018 filed its…

M/S. Simtools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7(3) ( Earstwhile DCIT- Cent. Cir-42), Mumbai

The appeal are allowed

ITA 1573/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 7(3), M/S Simtools Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai (Erstwhile Dcit- 412, Floor-4, 17G, Central Circle – 42) Vardhaman Chamber, Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Cawasji Patel Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1757M Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

…of search. In absence of incriminating material, we hold that orders of the ld. Lower Authorities are non-sustainable in view of the decision of honorable supreme court in case of Sinhgad Technical M/s. Simtools Pvt Ltd; A.Y. 2010-11. education society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) . Hence we allow ground no 4 and 5 of the Appeal. 025. Ground no 6 is with respect to addition of on money income on account of sale of car parking and Ground no 7 is on account of taxation of on money on sale of flats. We find that both this issues were discussed by the coordinate bench in the case of the assessee for AY 2011 -12 In 1574/M…

Venkatesan Ravi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2388/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2388/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Venkatesan Ravi, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 14A, Balu Nagar, Mogappair East, Income Tax, Chennai 600 037. Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai – 34. [Pan:Adwpr8864L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 25.06.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Before The Tribunal Is That “The Assessing Officer Ought To Have Been Passed Assessment Order Under Section 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Not Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act. The Issue Raised

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2388/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Venkatesan Ravi, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 14A, Balu Nagar, Mogappair East, Income Tax, Chennai 600 037. Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai – 34. [PAN:ADWPR8864L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by…

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 592/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…(A). There is no concealment in substance. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-) 4. In the appellate order against the assessment order, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) according to which initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C is not valid in law for the year relating to which incriminating material is not seized. No incriminating material seized, if any, relating to the year has been adverted to in the assessment order of the current year. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the…

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 591/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…(A). There is no concealment in substance. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-) 4. In the appellate order against the assessment order, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) according to which initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C is not valid in law for the year relating to which incriminating material is not seized. No incriminating material seized, if any, relating to the year has been adverted to in the assessment order of the current year. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the…

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…(A). There is no concealment in substance. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-) 4. In the appellate order against the assessment order, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) according to which initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C is not valid in law for the year relating to which incriminating material is not seized. No incriminating material seized, if any, relating to the year has been adverted to in the assessment order of the current year. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the…

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 589/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…(A). There is no concealment in substance. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-) 4. In the appellate order against the assessment order, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) according to which initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C is not valid in law for the year relating to which incriminating material is not seized. No incriminating material seized, if any, relating to the year has been adverted to in the assessment order of the current year. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the…

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 588/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…(A). There is no concealment in substance. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-) 4. In the appellate order against the assessment order, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) according to which initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C is not valid in law for the year relating to which incriminating material is not seized. No incriminating material seized, if any, relating to the year has been adverted to in the assessment order of the current year. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the…

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 587/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…(A). There is no concealment in substance. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-) 4. In the appellate order against the assessment order, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) according to which initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C is not valid in law for the year relating to which incriminating material is not seized. No incriminating material seized, if any, relating to the year has been adverted to in the assessment order of the current year. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the…

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 586/VIZ/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…(A). There is no concealment in substance. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-) 4. In the appellate order against the assessment order, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) according to which initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C is not valid in law for the year relating to which incriminating material is not seized. No incriminating material seized, if any, relating to the year has been adverted to in the assessment order of the current year. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the…

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 585/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…(A). There is no concealment in substance. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-) 4. In the appellate order against the assessment order, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) according to which initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C is not valid in law for the year relating to which incriminating material is not seized. No incriminating material seized, if any, relating to the year has been adverted to in the assessment order of the current year. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the…