Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi

398 ITR 88High Court2017#1858 most cited

What is Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi authority for?

A penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) must unambiguously specify the exact charge—either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, but not both interchangeably. Failing to strike out the irrelevant limb invalidates the notice and leads to the deletion of the penalty.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Baisetty Revathi · 398 ITR 88 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty notice · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · ambiguous notice · invalid notice · striking irrelevant limb · specific charge · penalty deletion · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 274Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi

ZF STEERING GEAR (INDIA) LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 15, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in very terms

ITA 4807/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs M/S Zf Sterling Gear Dcit Central Circle-15, (India) Limited, New Delhi Gat 1242 1244 Vadhu Room No. 245, Dgit Budruk Takuka Shirur (Systems) Ara Koregaon Bhima, Pune, Centre, Ground Maharashtara Floor E-2 (Pan: Aaacz0549G) Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…:- (i) CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (SC) (ii) PCIT v. Gragerious Projects (P.) Ltd. [2025] 475 ITR 546 (DELHI) (iii) PCIT v. Blackrock Securities (P.) Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 564 (Delhi) (iv) PCIT v. Smt. Baisetty Revathi [2017] 398 ITR 88( AP & Telanganna) (v) Nilima Agarwal v. ITO [2025] taxmann.com 59 (Raipur trib) (vi)In the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income –tax v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “21. The respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c ) of th…

SANJAY JAIN,SAHARANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6650/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Sanjay Jain, Ito, Ward-3(3)(1), 39, Mission Compound, Sahranpur-247001 Saharanpur-247001 Uttar Pradesh [Pan: Ackpj3369F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…s: (i) CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (SC) (ii) PCIT v. Gragerious Projects (P.) Ltd. [2025] 475 ITR 546 ( DELHI ) (iii)PCIT v. Blackrock Securities (P.) Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 564 (Delhi) (iv) PCIT v. Smt. Baisetty Revathi [2017] 398 ITR 88( AP & Telanganna) (v) Nilima Agarwal v. ITO [2025] taxmann.com 59 (Raipur trib) (vi)In the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income –tax v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “21. The respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c ) of t…

TIRMULA SURYA KUMARI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 745/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
Section 271(1)(c)

…d the income or filed inaccurate particulars of such income. Since there is ambiguity in the notice, the same should be treated as invalid, in view of the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of PCIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [2017] 398 ITR 88 (Andhra Pradesh). In this case, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that the Revenue must specify as to which one of the two limbs is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both, by interjecting or between the two. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has deleted the penalty levied by the Ld.AO. Follow…

DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the appellant company is allowed

ITA 634/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the CIT(A), Visakhapatnam on the following grounds : (i) Sale of scrap amounting to Rs.3,49,99,784/- (ii) Sale of empties amounting to Rs.8,65,345/- (iii) Sale of waste oil amounting to Rs.17,03,358/- (iv) Recovery towards leased quarter amounting to Rs.3,30,665/- (v) Exchange differences amounting to Rs.58,96,009/- (vi) Condemned machinery scrapped sale amounting to Rs.2,69,23,862/- (vii) Staff car recoveries amounting to Rs.61,560/- (viii) Sale of tender documents amounting to Rs.2,94,250

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…assessment order, copy of penalty order, copy of show cause notice dated 01/02/2022, reply filed by appellant before the AO and copy of ITAT order, which confirmed additions made by AO. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of PCIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi, 398 ITR 88(AP) and 3 decisions of coordinate Bench (Visakhapatnam) for the proposition that, non- striking the irrelevant limb will go to the root of the matter and this ambiguity in show cause notice was further compounded presently by 5 Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. confused finding of the officer that he was satisfied that the appellant was guilty o…

VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…lars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of PCIT v. Smt. Baisetty Regvathi, reported in (2017) 398 ITR 88 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) and observed as follows:- Page No. 7 I.T.A. No. 657/VIZ/2025 Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Limited "17. On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the Revenue under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefor has to be spel…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. M/s. Radical Bio Organics Limited,

ITTA/323/2022HC Telangana17 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

For Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENTFor Respondent: SRI S.V. RAMA KRISHNA
Section 260Section 271(1)(c)

…hile allowing the appeal to the aloresaid extent has given justifiable eLnd rr_'asonable explan,ation and has also supported the reasons assigned in the light of r,he decision of the IIon'ble jt.rrisdictional I ligl-r Court,s decision in pr, CIT Vs. Baisetty (398 ITR 88| (Telangana & Apl and also another decision rendered by Lhe Bombay t{igh Court in Mohd. Farhan I i l -_E_._____.= -a- 2 A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT l2O2Ll [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bombay) (Full Benchl. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this juncture, submits that so far as the judgments referred to by the Tribunal are concerned, the review is pendin…

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 235/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…e assessment order his satisfaction that the assessee had either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his return. 11. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of PCIT vs Smt. Baisetty Revathi reported in 398 ITR 88, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when charge against assessee is either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, revenue must specify as to which one of two is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both by interjecting one or betwee…

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 234/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…e assessment order his satisfaction that the assessee had either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his return. 11. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of PCIT vs Smt. Baisetty Revathi reported in 398 ITR 88, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when charge against assessee is either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, revenue must specify as to which one of two is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both by interjecting one or betwee…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 592/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 591/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 589/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 588/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 587/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 586/VIZ/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 585/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO,,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 584/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 583/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 582/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

MEKALA KAMESWARA RAO, ,SATTENAPALLI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 581/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4