CIT v. Syed Ali Adil

352 ITR 418High Court2013#2531 most cited

What is CIT v. Syed Ali Adil authority for?

Materials collected during a survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act lack independent evidentiary value, and income cannot be assessed solely based on a statement made by a partner during such a survey.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Syed Ali Adil · CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son · Section 133A · survey operation · evidentiary value of survey material · statement recorded during survey · assessment of undisclosed income · sole reliance on statement · best judgment assessment · incriminating material

Also reported as

33 Taxmann.com 212

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 234BSection 234CSection 13(2) of the General Clauses ActSection 143(3)Section 1897Section 234-BSection 234-C

Issues it is cited on

best judgment assessmentsection 54fdocuments seizedsection 54section 133asection 234scrutiny assessmentincriminating materialundisclosed incomepersonappeal before the tribunaldocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Syed Ali Adil

KAIRALI ADUKKALA,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE, MANGALORE

ITA 1584/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 234

…nce the same is only a dumb document. In such circumstances, we do not think that the common written submissions filed by the revenue would support the case of the revenue. 32. We have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 352 ITR 418 in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the finding given by the Hon’ble Madras High Court that, in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey, the action u/s. 133A would not have any evidentiary value and that it could not be said solely on the basis of th…

KAIRALI ADUKKALA,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE, MANGALURU

ITA 1583/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 234

…nce the same is only a dumb document. In such circumstances, we do not think that the common written submissions filed by the revenue would support the case of the revenue. 32. We have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 352 ITR 418 in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the finding given by the Hon’ble Madras High Court that, in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey, the action u/s. 133A would not have any evidentiary value and that it could not be said solely on the basis of th…

KAIRALI BHAVAN RESTAURANT,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE, MANGALURU

ITA 1580/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 234

…nce the same is only a dumb document. In such circumstances, we do not think that the common written submissions filed by the revenue would support the case of the revenue. 32. We have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 352 ITR 418 in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the finding given by the Hon’ble Madras High Court that, in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey, the action u/s. 133A would not have any evidentiary value and that it could not be said solely on the basis of th…

KAIRALI BHAVAN RESTAURANT,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE, MANGALURU

ITA 1579/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 234

…nce the same is only a dumb document. In such circumstances, we do not think that the common written submissions filed by the revenue would support the case of the revenue. 32. We have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 352 ITR 418 in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the finding given by the Hon’ble Madras High Court that, in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey, the action u/s. 133A would not have any evidentiary value and that it could not be said solely on the basis of th…

HOTEL RESIDENCY PARK,MANGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE, MANGALORE

ITA 1576/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 234

…nce the same is only a dumb document. In such circumstances, we do not think that the common written submissions filed by the revenue would support the case of the revenue. 32. We have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 352 ITR 418 in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the finding given by the Hon’ble Madras High Court that, in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey, the action u/s. 133A would not have any evidentiary value and that it could not be said solely on the basis of th…

HOTEL MALABAR REGENCY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE, MANGALORE

ITA 1550/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 234

…nce the same is only a dumb document. In such circumstances, we do not think that the common written submissions filed by the revenue would support the case of the revenue. 32. We have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 352 ITR 418 in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the finding given by the Hon’ble Madras High Court that, in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey, the action u/s. 133A would not have any evidentiary value and that it could not be said solely on the basis of th…

GOPAL NAIDU THIRUMALESH,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, CHITTOOR.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.314/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Gopal Naidu Vs. Income Tax Officer Thirumalesh Ward 2 Chittoor Chittoor Pan:Aosps0818Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, DR
Section 139Section 148Section 2(47)Section 54F

…he learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to certain judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (A.P) submitted that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act, in respect of 3 flats received from the Builder for surrendering 65% undivided share in the land in pursuant to the JDA dated 24/10/2013. Therefore, he submitted that the exemption may be given to one flat in respect of Long- Page 3 of 6 ITA No 314 of 2024 Gopal Nai…

RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(2) , DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2272/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2272/Del/2024, A.Y. 2012-13 Sh. Rajendra Agrawal ITO, C/o. Raj Kumar Associates, Ward-30(2), Chartered Accountants L7A, Vs. Delhi LGF, South Ext. Part-II, Delhi PAN: ACRPA4020F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Raj Kumar, CA & Sh. Suraj Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Sh. P. N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 26/07/2024 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This appeal for the Assessment Year (In Short, the ‘AY’)…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 382/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 54F

…under section 54(1), expression 'a residential house' includes within its ambit plural numbers as well and, thus, it cannot be construed as one residential house only. Andhra 12 ACIT Vs Manish Sumatilal Shah Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418(AP)/ 33 taxmann.com 212(AP) also held exemption under section 54 cannot be denied, where residential house property purchased by assessee consists of several independent units. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussions, we find that the ld CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee has not committed any error on facts and law…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA vs. M.BHAGYA LAKSHMI , KADAPA

ITA 96/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001 PAN : ARHPS1915N (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection.No.14/Hyd/2019 (In ITA No. No.2236/Hyd/2018) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Vs. ACIT,Circle-1 Reddy Aaykar Bhavan #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar #2-430-8, Nagarajupet Kadapa-516 001 Kadapa PAN : ARHPS1915N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessm…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA vs. S.V.SATISH KUMAR REDDY , KADAPA

ITA 2236/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001 PAN : ARHPS1915N (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection.No.14/Hyd/2019 (In ITA No. No.2236/Hyd/2018) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Vs. ACIT,Circle-1 Reddy Aaykar Bhavan #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar #2-430-8, Nagarajupet Kadapa-516 001 Kadapa PAN : ARHPS1915N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessm…

RAVI AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniravi Agrawal Pr. Cit 101-102, Kanchan Vihar, Indore Vs. Niranjanpur, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aorpa 2161 B Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263Section 54

…tute a residential house for the purpose of the provisions of section 54 of the Act. Assessee has relied upon a series of the decisions of this point which are as under: 1. Ravi Shankar, Mumbai vs AsstCit 16(3), (2018), Mumbai 2. CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP), Andhra Pradesh High Court ] 3. CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 30 taxmann.com 230/214 Taxman 51 (Delhi) 4. CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma (331 ITR 211) 5. ITO v. Smt. Jyothi K. Mehta (2011) 12 Taxman 440 6. Prem Prakash Bhutani v. ACIT (2009) 31 SOT 38 7. ITO v. Ms. Shushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 327 8. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) 81 DTR 33 9. V.…

ITO WARD - 30(1), NEW DELHI vs. KUSUM GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue Department, stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 914/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Jindal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250Section 54

…ord "a" should not be understood to indicate a singular number. This decision has been followed by the Karnataka High Court in the case [9] of CIT v. Smt K.G. Rukminiamma (supra). The High Court of Andra Pradesh in the recent case of CIT \/s Syed Aii [20131 352 ITR 418 (AP). has also held that the exemption under section 54 only requires that the property purchased by assessee out of sale proceeds should be of residential nature and the fact that residential house consisted of several independent units cannot be an impediment for granting relief under said section, even if such independent units are situated si…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. KAMBAM RAJESWARI, HYDERABAD

ITA 218/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

…4F deduction arising from assessee’s joint development agreement involving receipt of developed area as sale consideration has already been held eligible for section 54F deduction in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (supra). We thus see no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance in both of its appeals Nos.217 and 218/Hyd/2019 which are dismissed. 6. To sum up, the assessee’s former appeal ITA No.215/Hyd/2019 is partly allowed and latter appeal ITA No.216/Hyd/2019 is dismissed as rendered infructuous. Both the Revenue’s cross-appeals ITA No…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. KAMBAM RAJESWARI , HYDERABAD

ITA 217/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

…4F deduction arising from assessee’s joint development agreement involving receipt of developed area as sale consideration has already been held eligible for section 54F deduction in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (supra). We thus see no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance in both of its appeals Nos.217 and 218/Hyd/2019 which are dismissed. 6. To sum up, the assessee’s former appeal ITA No.215/Hyd/2019 is partly allowed and latter appeal ITA No.216/Hyd/2019 is dismissed as rendered infructuous. Both the Revenue’s cross-appeals ITA No…

KAMBAM RAJESWARI ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 216/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

…4F deduction arising from assessee’s joint development agreement involving receipt of developed area as sale consideration has already been held eligible for section 54F deduction in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (supra). We thus see no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance in both of its appeals Nos.217 and 218/Hyd/2019 which are dismissed. 6. To sum up, the assessee’s former appeal ITA No.215/Hyd/2019 is partly allowed and latter appeal ITA No.216/Hyd/2019 is dismissed as rendered infructuous. Both the Revenue’s cross-appeals ITA No…

KAMBAM RAJESWARI ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 215/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

…4F deduction arising from assessee’s joint development agreement involving receipt of developed area as sale consideration has already been held eligible for section 54F deduction in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (supra). We thus see no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance in both of its appeals Nos.217 and 218/Hyd/2019 which are dismissed. 6. To sum up, the assessee’s former appeal ITA No.215/Hyd/2019 is partly allowed and latter appeal ITA No.216/Hyd/2019 is dismissed as rendered infructuous. Both the Revenue’s cross-appeals ITA No…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. LATE SHRI IENENI SRIPATHIRAO L/R IENENI SHASHIKANT, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1380/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Late Shri Ieneni Income Tax, Sripathirao Circle – 11(1), L/R Ieneni Shashikant, Hyderabad. H.No.5-2-41/20, Seshadri Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Pan : Beeps2654P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2011-12 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 16.07.2019, In Case No.0060/2018-19/Cit(A)-5 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ITA No.1380/Hyd/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Late Shri Ieneni Income Tax, Sripathirao Circle – 11(1), L/R Ieneni Shashikant, Hyderabad. H.No.5-2-41/20, Seshadri Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. PAN : BEEPS2654P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas. Revenue by: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date of hearing: 23/11/2021 Date of pronouncement: 29/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. PANDURANGA RAO VADDEPALLY , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

…r dated 18/06/2021 suffering a mistake(s) apparent on record. We now consider the case law: 1. CIT Vs. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram, ITTA No. 588 of 2013, dated 06/12/2013 2. Vittal Kirshna Conjeevaram Vs. ITO, 144 ITD 325 (ITAT, Hyd.) 3. CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil, 352 ITR 418 (AP – HC) 4. CIT Vs. D. Ananda Basappa, 309 ITR 329 5. CIT Vs. Gita Duggal, 357 ITR 153 6. Arun K. Thiagarajan Vs. CIT, 193 DTR 153) 7. CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain, 394 ITR 666 8. Tilokchand and Sons Vs. ITO, 413 ITR 189 9. K. Jaipal & Others, ITA NO. 1188/Hyd/2015 and others, dated 19/11/2015. :- 14 -: ITA No. 1826 & 59/Hyd/2019 Bhupathi Ra V and anot…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. BHUPATHI RAO VADDEPALLY , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1826/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

…r dated 18/06/2021 suffering a mistake(s) apparent on record. We now consider the case law: 1. CIT Vs. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram, ITTA No. 588 of 2013, dated 06/12/2013 2. Vittal Kirshna Conjeevaram Vs. ITO, 144 ITD 325 (ITAT, Hyd.) 3. CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil, 352 ITR 418 (AP – HC) 4. CIT Vs. D. Ananda Basappa, 309 ITR 329 5. CIT Vs. Gita Duggal, 357 ITR 153 6. Arun K. Thiagarajan Vs. CIT, 193 DTR 153) 7. CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain, 394 ITR 666 8. Tilokchand and Sons Vs. ITO, 413 ITR 189 9. K. Jaipal & Others, ITA NO. 1188/Hyd/2015 and others, dated 19/11/2015. :- 14 -: ITA No. 1826 & 59/Hyd/2019 Bhupathi Ra V and anot…

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. Syed Ali Adil (352 ITR 418) — Cited in 46 Judgments | BharatTax