Gouli Mahadevappa v. ITO & Anr.

356 ITR 90High Court2013#17732 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 142 Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Gouli Mahadevappa v. ITO & Anr.

Lal Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(2), Jaipur

ITA 1074/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 50CSection 54F

…TJ (Jp) 482, Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO (2012) 49 SOT 160 (Jp) and Nand Lal Sharma vs. ITO (2015) 122 DTR (Jp)(Trib) 404 : (2015) 172 TTJ (Jp) 412 have been followed; and Gouli Mahadevappa vs. ITO & Anr. (2013) 259 CTR (Kar) 579: (2013) 88 DTR (Kar) 59 : (2013) 356 ITR 90 (Kar) has been distinguished.” Based on above it is submitted that, the provisions of s.50C of the Act create a limited fiction to the effect that the full value of consideration shall be substituted with the provisions u/s 48 of the Act by the amount taken by the Sub-…

Shri Lalit Kumar Kalwar, Sarwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 894/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…: (2010) 133 TTJ (Jp) 482, Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO (2012) 49 SOT 160 (Jp) and Nand Lal Sharma vs. ITO (2015) 122 DTR (Jp)(Trib) 404 : (2015) 172 TTJ (Jp) 412 followed; Gouli Mahadevappa vs. ITO & Anr. (2013) 259 CTR (Kar) 579: (2013) 88 DTR (Kar) 59 : (2013) 356 ITR 90 (Kar) distinguished.” 8 Shri Lalit Kumar Kalwar vs. ITO Thus in our view also the natural meaning of full value of consideration refers to consideration specified in the Sale Deed. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR (Del) 277: (2008) 14 DTR (Del) 108 (2009) 309 ITR 233 (Del) had hel…

Mr.Shivayogi Ambaraya Tengli, Gulbarga vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Gulbarga

ITA 1649/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Patil, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Shri Shivayogi Ambaraya Tengli, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner C/o. Patil Kabbur & Associates, of Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 1, No.116/5/1, 3rd Floor, 11th Cross, Gulbarga. Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560003. PAN: DLYPS 7578M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sukesh Patil, CA Respondent by : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2021 O R D E R Pe…

M/S. Delhi Surgical & Dressing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.5058/Del/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 5059/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

…o the following decisions, the ld. DR submitted that the penalty levied by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case is justified:- i) CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51 (Del); ii) Gouli Mahadevappa vs. CIT, 356 ITR 90 (Kar); iii) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd., 376 ITR 1 (Cal); iv) Jawahar Lal Jain (HUF), 370 ITR 712 (P&H) 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find, the AO, i…

Shri Naresh Kumar Golchha, Katni vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 90/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Naresh Kumar Golchha V. Pr. C.I.T.-2 C/O Samapat Lal & Sons Jabalpur Raghunath Ganj Katni Tan/Pan:Afhpg3398F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. H. S. Modh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019

For Appellant: Dr. H. S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 48Section 50CSection 54E

…C.I.T., the assessee has placed reliance on ‘Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO', 49 SOT 160 (Jaipur-Trib.). It has been contended that the Pr. C.I.T. has erred in holding that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ‘Gouli Mahadevappa vs. ITO', 356 ITR 90 (Karn) is applicable and not that of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal (supra), itself shows that there are two views possible in the matter and that as such, ipso facto, the provisions of section 263 of the Act ought not to have been invoked in the matter. The reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Max India Limited’ [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), wherein…