Pendurthi Chandrasekhar v. DCIT

407 ITR 179High Court2018#24876 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing Pendurthi Chandrasekhar v. DCIT

Vinay Kumar Konda, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Vinay Kumar Konda, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward -8(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Ajnpk8150F. (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Sathiya Sivaprakasam Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 Date Of Order: 10/02/2022 O R D E R This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Dt.15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Only Grievance In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.5,96,194/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Sathiya Sivaprakasam

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…hat the Ld CIT (A) was not correct in holding that the person who gave the amount did not have creditworthiness. 8. The Ld.AR relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pendurthi Chandrasekhar Vs. DCIT (2019) 407 ITR 179, submitted that in case of gifts received from close quarters who fall within the definition of “relative” as defined u/s 56(2)(v) of the Act, the occasion to give gift need not have be examined The Ld. AR therefore submitted that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the purpose of gift is not mentioned in the confirmation letters is incorrect. On…

Sri Y C Kallinatha, Bangalore vs. Addl Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 729/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(iv)Section 56(2)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.729/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 Sri Y.C.Kallinatha The Addl.Commissioner of # B-89, 5th Cross Income-tax, Circle 9(1) v. Bangalore. Rajajinagar Industrial Estate Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 044. PAN : AFXPK7979N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Respondent by :Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2021 Date of Hearing : 28.07.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against C…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…by the appellant are one of gifts which either falls within the limits of section 56(2)(v) of the Act or outside the scope of said section as received from specified relatives. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court in 407 ITR 179 and also of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 57 taxman.com 84 stating that wherein, in case of gifts received from relatives no occasion need to be proved and where assessee donor has given confirmation that he had given Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. ITO amount towards gift out of love and affection, AO could not have raised doubt about the capaci…