How many judgments cite Gunda Subbayya v. CIT?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite Gunda Subbayya v. CIT (7 ITR 21), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gunda Subbayya v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 144, Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 234B.

Gunda Subbayya v. CIT

7 ITR 21High Court1939#5549 most cited

What is Gunda Subbayya v. CIT authority for?

A best judgment assessment cannot be made capriciously or in utter disregard to the material on record. The principles of natural justice require that material gathered behind the assessee's back should be communicated to them.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gunda Subbayya v CIT · best judgment assessment · material on record · capricious assessment · audi alteram partem · natural justice · section 142(1) · principles of equity

Sections most often in play

Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 234B Section 234A Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 251(l)(a)audi alteram partem section 251(2)best judgment assessment section 246 section 246a income escaping assessment section 251 tangible material escapement of income section 250(6)reason to believe

Judgments citing Gunda Subbayya v. CIT

Bhagirathi Associates, Hooghly vs. I.T.O WD - 1(2), Hooghly.

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…93) 1 ITR 375, 378 (Oudh). A best judgment assessment is not by way of penalty for non-compliance [Jot Ram Sher Singh v. CIT, (1934) 2 ITR 129 (All)] and it cannot be made capriciously in utter disregard to the material on record [Gunda Subbayya v. CIT (1939) 7 ITR 21, 26-27 (Mad-FB); CIT v. S.Sen (1949) 17 ITR 355 (Ori). In view of above we are of the considered view that the lower authorities should have rejected the books of accounts. Accordingly we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per law and to frame the assessment de-novo after rejecting the books of accounts…