L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. DCIT

308 ITR 168High Court2009#1780 most cited

What is L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. DCIT authority for?

A search under Section 132 must be a continuous quest for hidden assets, not a mere inspection, and the panchnama must clearly reflect that a search was carried out, with any splitting of the search requiring cogent reasons. An order under Section 132(3) is not automatically applicable for the period under Section 132(8A) and cannot be passed to ascertain undisclosed income from regular account transactions.

64

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

Ranjana Katyal v. DCIT · S.K.Katyal · Section 132 · Section 132(3) · Section 132(8A) · definition of search · panchnama · mere inspection · continuous search · splitting of search · undisclosed income · limitation

Sections most often in play

Section 153BSection 132(3)Section 132(8A)Section 153ASection 115BBESection 68Section 69CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 132(3)section 132(5)section 158besection 153b(1)(a)section 132(2)section 65(b)section 292ccsection 80ia(4)(iii)section 153(1)(a)section 142(2c)section 65asection 62

Judgments citing L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. DCIT

AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA,BILASPUR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-08, DELHI

ITA 3502/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 246

…Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 10/398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT v. D.D. Axles (P.) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 277/323 ITR 558 (Delhi). (iii) CIT v. Deepak Aggarwal [2008] 175 Taxman 1/[2009] 308 ITR 116 (Delhi). (iv) CIT v. S.K. Katyal [2009] 177 Taxman 380/308 ITR 168 (Delhi). (v) PCIT Central v. Hitesh Ashok Vaswani, 2011 (11) TMI 347- Gujarat High Court (vi) C. Ramaiah Reddy v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, /[2011] 339 ITR 210 (Karnataka) (vii) CIT v. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384/253 ITR 534 (Bom.). (viii) CIT v. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Kar.). (ix) Mohd Yasin v. CIT [2017] 84…

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4289/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4288/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4286/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4273/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2),, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4272/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the\nassessees are stands allowed

ITA 4267/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12
Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…ot be passed to ascertain whether\nany transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed\nincome.\n\nAlso did not accept contention of the department that order u/s\n132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic.\n\n5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37]\n\nThis case deals with the period of limitation.\n\nAt Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16\nit is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was\ncarried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not\namount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search\none has to look for, ther…

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3362/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3361/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3360/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3347/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

M/S. INDEX LOGISTICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…er cannot be passed to ascertain whether any transaction made in the accounts represent undisclosed income. Also did not accept contention of the department that order u/s 132(3) for the period prescribed u/s 132(8A) is automatic. 5) CIT v S.K.Katyal (2009) 308 ITR 168(Del)(HC) [Pg 26-37] This case deals with the period of limitation. At Para 15 the concept of panchnama is explained. At Para 16 it is held that Panchanama must reveal that a Search was carried out. At Para 18 it is held that mere inspection does not amount to Search. At Para 19 it is explained that for a Search one has to look for, there has to…

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 180/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin vs. CIT, Jaipur [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 292 (Rajasthan) (viii) CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan). (ix) CIT-1, Jodhpur vs. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 Ta…

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 179/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin vs. CIT, Jaipur [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 292 (Rajasthan) (viii) CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan). (ix) CIT-1, Jodhpur vs. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 Ta…

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin vs. CIT, Jaipur [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 292 (Rajasthan) (viii) CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan). (ix) CIT-1, Jodhpur vs. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 Ta…

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin vs. CIT, Jaipur [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 292 (Rajasthan) (viii) CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan). (ix) CIT-1, Jodhpur vs. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 Ta…

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin vs. CIT, Jaipur [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 292 (Rajasthan) (viii) CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan). (ix) CIT-1, Jodhpur vs. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 Ta…

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 175/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin vs. CIT, Jaipur [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 292 (Rajasthan) (viii) CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan). (ix) CIT-1, Jodhpur vs. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 Ta…

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 174/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin vs. CIT, Jaipur [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 292 (Rajasthan) (viii) CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan). (ix) CIT-1, Jodhpur vs. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 Ta…

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 173/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin vs. CIT, Jaipur [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 292 (Rajasthan) (viii) CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan). (ix) CIT-1, Jodhpur vs. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 Ta…

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4