What is Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT authority for?

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

How many judgments cite Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT?

142 judgments on BharatTax cite Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (57 ITR 532), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 5(2), Section 9, Section 147, Section 6, Section 143(3), Section 5.

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (57 ITR 532)

Kei Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward 24(1) Vs. M/S Sun New Creations New Delhi & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 59/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) M/S Sun New Creations Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…of Rs.3,83,10,500/- (in the case of 'Sun- New') and Rs.1,45,00,000/- in the case of 'PPR'), it comes out that he liberally applied the concepts of probabilities and possibilities which is not permitted under the law. Parimisetti Seetharamammav vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Various explanations made by the appellant company during the assessment/appellate proceedings are not absurd and had been rejected without making any proper enquiry. The AO merely disbelieved but not disproved the facts stated by the appellant company in respect of cash sales. It is settled law that an explanation prima facie reasonable can…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Aurangbad vs. Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1339/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1339/Pun/2024

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271DSection 69D

…t of the assessee earning undisclosed income, the burden is on the department to prove that such undisclosed income as referred in section 69 to 69D has been earned by the assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 while dealing the case involving addition on account of undisclosed income (gift) held that the burden was wrongly shifted to the assessee. In all cases in which receipt is said to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the taxing provisions. Now how the department has to discharge the burden has also be…

Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Gondia, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Gondia

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 263/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)

…on is claimed, the burden lies on the party claiming the exemption to provide the proof for its eligibility to the same. It is a well settled law that the burden of proving that the income is not taxable lies upon the assessee Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC), CIT Vs Ramakrishna Deo 35 ITR 312 (SC). Further, the Supreme Court in respect of Commissioner of Customs Vs Dileep Kumar & Company in Civil Appeal Number 3327/2007 has held that exemptions have to be interpreted very strictly and onus of proving the eligibility for an exemption rests on the assessee. With appellant not having discharged the…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250

…n the taxing provision. Where, however, a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable, because it falls within an exemption provided by the Act, lies upon the lies upon the assessee. (Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs CIT(1965) 57 ITR 532, 536(SC) (g) The Assessing Officer is, within the limits assigned to him under the Act, a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of assessment of income-tax He has under the Act to decide whether a particular receipt as income. As between the state and the as sea see, it is his function alone to determine whether the receipt is income…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250

…n the taxing provision. Where, however, a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable, because it falls within an exemption provided by the Act, lies upon the lies upon the assessee. (Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs CIT(1965) 57 ITR 532, 536(SC) (g) The Assessing Officer is, within the limits assigned to him under the Act, a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of assessment of income-tax He has under the Act to decide whether a particular receipt as income. As between the state and the as sea see, it is his function alone to determine whether the receipt is income…

Omwati, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 3643/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3643/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Omwati, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 316, Village-Noornagar, Ward-2(2)(1), Sihani Gods Valley Faram, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad-201003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aegpo9325L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.06.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1065625654(1) In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 3643/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Omwati, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 316, Village-Noornagar, Ward-2(2)(1), Sihani Gods Valley Faram, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad-201003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEGPO9325L Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises agains…

Arvind Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1) (Old Ward-5(2)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 381/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 129Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 68Section 69A

…and in fact the Assessing Officer has not disturbed the sales. The Ld. AR further submitted that when the receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the Department to prove the same as held in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT, 57 ITR 532 (SC) and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, 106 ITR 1 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that once the income is shown in the return of income and books of account, the addition of the same amount would result in double taxation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs Vishal Exports Overseas Lim…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Coimbatore vs. Ms Elgi Electric and Industires Ltd, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1085/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1085/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Elgi Electric & Industries Ltd. Income Tax, 737-D, Elgi Towers, Puliyakulam Corporate Circle 1, Green Fields, Coimbatore 641 045. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaace4787H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, F.C.A

Section 143(3)Section 158ASection 69

…me. That the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the income sought to be taxed is within the taxing provisions and there was in fact income, are propositions which are well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 which reiterates these propositions.” 9. On perusal of the above and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we note that the assessee, undoubtedly shown a different value of closing stock to the bank stating to be for availing credit facilities. Admittedly the said value is different from the statement of value…

Rbw Global Sarl, Mumbai vs. ACIT(International Taxation) Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 733/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 234B

…sessee has received a sum Page No. 5 RBW GLOBAL SARL of ₹.1,68,29,942/- but was not certain whether the same is business income or capital gains. In our understanding of the law every receipt is not income as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 57 ITR 532. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “By ss. 3 & 4 the Act imposes a general ability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the Department to prove th…

Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr.D.R

Section 250

…n dispute, as in the instant case, the burden to prove that the same is exempt from tax, i.e., satisfying the condition for exemption, is on the assessee. The law in the matter is well-settled, for which we may refer to Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 6 GSTR-OL 46 (SC), to cite some; and accords that the principle that it is the assessee who is to prove it’s return and the claims preferred thereby, being in the intimate know of its affairs Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad P…

Firefly Energy Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2871/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2871/Ahd/2016 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Firefly Energy Limited, Income Tax Officer, 14. Pahelgaon Bunglow, Vs. Ward-2(1)(3), Judges Bungalow Road, Ahmedabad. Vastrapura, Ahmedabad. C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co. Chartered Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Near Gandhi Gram Rly. Station, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabca6692E

For Appellant: Shri PD Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT. DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

…n assessee falls within the net of taxation. Once it is so proved then the burden is on the assessee to prove that such income is exempt from taxation. Reference can be made to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sec. 52 being charging section, the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the income of the non- resident falls within the ambit of such section. On the other hand, the legislature has cast the onus on the assessee to explain the source of money falling within the ambit of s. 68 or s. 69. These sections are of universal application and do n…

Dr. C Usha, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward-3, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmidr. C. Usha Income Tax Officer Modern Hospital Ward -3, Palakkad Guruvayur Road, Koottanad Vs. Palakkad 679533 [Pan:Aafpu8363H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…n dispute, as in the instant case, the burden to prove that the same is exempt from tax, i.e., satisfying the condition for exemption, is on the assessee. The law in the matter is well-settled, for which we may refer to Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 6 GSTR-OL 46 (SC), to cite some; and accords that the principle that it is the assessee who is to prove it’s return and the claims preferred thereby, being in the intimate know of its affairs ((CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. […

Jagadish Kumar P.V (Legal Heir of Late Rema Padmaja Bai), Trivandrum vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmijagadish Kumar P.V. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) (L/H Of Rema Padmaja Bai) Thiruvananthapuram Sree, T.C. 50/899(1), Kalady Vs. Hsra A-56, Karamana P.O. Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Aempp5283J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member Jagadish Kumar P.V. Asst. CIT, Circle - 2(1) (L/H of Rema Padmaja Bai) Thiruvananthapuram Sree, T.C. 50/899(1), Kalady vs. HSRA A-56, Karamana P.O. Thiruvananthapuram [PAN:AEMPP5283J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Raja Kannan, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 20.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 11.03.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee challenging the Order dated 24.03.2023 by the Co…

Sanjay Kisan Chopde, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.176/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Kisan Chopde, The Deputy Balaji Associates, Gs 37, Vs Commissioner Of Amar Jyoti Palace, Lomat Income Tax, Circle-1, Square, Wardha Road, Nagpur. Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Abapc6968N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Agrawal – Advocate Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Dated 30.3.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated 30.06.2016 For A.Y.2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Sanjay Kisan Chopde [A]

Section 143(3)Section 271

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ नागपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH : : NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.176/NAG/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Kisan Chopde, The Deputy Balaji Associates, GS 37, Vs Commissioner Of Amar Jyoti Palace, Lomat Income Tax, Circle-1, Square, Wardha Road, Nagpur. Nagpur – 440012. PAN: ABAPC6968N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee by Shri Abhay Agrawal – Advocate Revenue by Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.DR Date of hearing 25/01/2024…

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2881/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2875 to 2881/DEL/2022 A.Yrs.: 2013-14 to 2019-20 RUBY SINGH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, R-543, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, VS NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ANAPS3827J) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Rajeev Sabharwal, CA Department by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2023 ORDER The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld. Commiss…

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2880/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2875 to 2881/DEL/2022 A.Yrs.: 2013-14 to 2019-20 RUBY SINGH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, R-543, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, VS NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ANAPS3827J) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Rajeev Sabharwal, CA Department by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2023 ORDER The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld. Commiss…

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2879/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2875 to 2881/DEL/2022 A.Yrs.: 2013-14 to 2019-20 RUBY SINGH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, R-543, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, VS NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ANAPS3827J) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Rajeev Sabharwal, CA Department by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2023 ORDER The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld. Commiss…

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2878/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2875 to 2881/DEL/2022 A.Yrs.: 2013-14 to 2019-20 RUBY SINGH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, R-543, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, VS NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ANAPS3827J) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Rajeev Sabharwal, CA Department by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2023 ORDER The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld. Commiss…

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2877/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2875 to 2881/DEL/2022 A.Yrs.: 2013-14 to 2019-20 RUBY SINGH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, R-543, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, VS NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ANAPS3827J) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Rajeev Sabharwal, CA Department by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2023 ORDER The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld. Commiss…

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2876/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2875 to 2881/DEL/2022 A.Yrs.: 2013-14 to 2019-20 RUBY SINGH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, R-543, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, VS NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ANAPS3827J) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Rajeev Sabharwal, CA Department by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2023 ORDER The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld. Commiss…

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

What is Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

Kei Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Aurangbad vs. Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal, Aurangabad

Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Gondia, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Gondia

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

Omwati, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

Arvind Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1) (Old Ward-5(2)(2)), Ahmedabad

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Coimbatore vs. Ms Elgi Electric and Industires Ltd, Coimbatore

Rbw Global Sarl, Mumbai vs. ACIT(International Taxation) Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

Firefly Energy Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

Dr. C Usha, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward-3, Palakkad

Jagadish Kumar P.V (Legal Heir of Late Rema Padmaja Bai), Trivandrum vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Trivandrum

Sanjay Kisan Chopde, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Ruby Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi