(i) Ahmed Shareef v. DCIT

189 ITD 522Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#23289 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Judgments citing (i) Ahmed Shareef v. DCIT

Shree Krishna Builders, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

…t by DVO). Submission made before Id. Pr. CIT vide letter dated 08.02.2022 & 08.03.2022, at PN 9 to 16 & 27 to 33 of PB, relevant claim at PN 15 & 30 of PB, para no. (5) of letters. 10.Difference less than 15% is to be ignored (i) Ahmed Shareef vs DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 522 (Bang.) - Difference between cost of construction shown by assessee and as determined by AO being less than 15 per cent, same is to be ignored for purposes of addition, more so when the construction was spread over a period of seven years. (ii) Bimla Singh vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 71 (Patna) 11.In view of above, order passed u/s 263 is illegal & uns…

Shree Krishna Colonisers, Raipur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 95/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

…t by DVO). Submission made before Id. Pr. CIT vide letter dated 08.02.2022 & 08.03.2022, at PN 9 to 16 & 27 to 33 of PB, relevant claim at PN 15 & 30 of PB, para no. (5) of letters. 10.Difference less than 15% is to be ignored (i) Ahmed Shareef vs DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 522 (Bang.) - Difference between cost of construction shown by assessee and as determined by AO being less than 15 per cent, same is to be ignored for purposes of addition, more so when the construction was spread over a period of seven years. (ii) Bimla Singh vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 71 (Patna) 11.In view of above, order passed u/s 263 is illegal & uns…

Subramanyam Thanniru, Nellore vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69B

…Assessing Officer adopted plinth rate method, that too preferring CPWD rates to AP State PWD rates, and it is impermissible. Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions of the Co- ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the case of Ahmed Shareeff vs. DCIT [2021] 189 ITD 522 and ACIT vs. Vinodkumar Agarwal, [2002] 82 ITD 1 (HYD.), apart from the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar [1990] 182 ITR 436 in support of his contention. 6. Learned DR to the contrary submitted that the law permits the learned Assessing Officer to take resort to the report of the DVO to determine the c…