Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT

339 ITR 210High Court2011#1047 most cited

What is Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT authority for?

A search is considered complete once the search party leaves the premises with the seized material. A restraint order under section 132(3) can only be passed if there's a practical difficulty in seizing the material.

104

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ramaiah Reddy v ACIT · 339 ITR 210 · section 132(3) · section 132 · search · restraint order · seizure of material · continuity of search · practical difficulty

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 132(2)section 132(5)section 132(3)warrant of authorisationsection 158besection 153b(1)(a)section 132(1)(a)section 153(2)section 153(1)(a)section 153b(1)section 2(31)section 53a

Judgments citing Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani, Ahmedabad

ITA 805/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…ls) 54 the scope of Section 153B Sub Section (2). The learned counsel submitted that it is verbatim same as the Explanation (2) of Section 158BE. This aspect has been considered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of C. Ramaiah Reddy vs. ACIT reported in 339 ITR 210 (Kar.). The learned counsel submitted that against this judgment, department went before the Hon’ble Supreme court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP, in other words, leave to file appeal against the judgment was granted but Civil Appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel submitted that he is unable to lay his hand on the judgment of…

Shri Deepak Budharmal Vaswani, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 461/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…ls) 54 the scope of Section 153B Sub Section (2). The learned counsel submitted that it is verbatim same as the Explanation (2) of Section 158BE. This aspect has been considered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of C. Ramaiah Reddy vs. ACIT reported in 339 ITR 210 (Kar.). The learned counsel submitted that against this judgment, department went before the Hon’ble Supreme court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP, in other words, leave to file appeal against the judgment was granted but Civil Appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel submitted that he is unable to lay his hand on the judgment of…

Shri Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 457/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…ls) 54 the scope of Section 153B Sub Section (2). The learned counsel submitted that it is verbatim same as the Explanation (2) of Section 158BE. This aspect has been considered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of C. Ramaiah Reddy vs. ACIT reported in 339 ITR 210 (Kar.). The learned counsel submitted that against this judgment, department went before the Hon’ble Supreme court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP, in other words, leave to file appeal against the judgment was granted but Civil Appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel submitted that he is unable to lay his hand on the judgment of…

Shri Ashok Sunderdas Vaswani, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 456/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…ls) 54 the scope of Section 153B Sub Section (2). The learned counsel submitted that it is verbatim same as the Explanation (2) of Section 158BE. This aspect has been considered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of C. Ramaiah Reddy vs. ACIT reported in 339 ITR 210 (Kar.). The learned counsel submitted that against this judgment, department went before the Hon’ble Supreme court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP, in other words, leave to file appeal against the judgment was granted but Civil Appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel submitted that he is unable to lay his hand on the judgment of…

Sri. B.T. Dayananda Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 134/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Dilip Junior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 2Section 234A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80 and also reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, reported in 339 ITR 210. 4. Without Prejudice the Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 72,58,000/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,87,000/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITANo.134-135/Bang/2012 A.Y.2004-05 & 2007-08 Page 3 of 17 5. The authorities below were not justified in making an addition of Rs. 70,00,00…

Sri. B.T. Dayananda Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 135/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Dilip Junior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 2Section 234A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80 and also reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, reported in 339 ITR 210. 4. Without Prejudice the Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 72,58,000/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,87,000/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITANo.134-135/Bang/2012 A.Y.2004-05 & 2007-08 Page 3 of 17 5. The authorities below were not justified in making an addition of Rs. 70,00,00…

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 799/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &
Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

…ties below is bad in law for want of requisite jurisdiction. 13.The learned CIT(A) ought to have given a finding on the validity of search. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C Ramaiah Reddy vs. ACIT reported in 339 ITR 210. 14. The authorities below erred in not providing the copy of reasons recorded even after specific request made by the appellant under the facts of the case. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DGIT vs. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 374 ITR 595. 15.The appellant denies himself liable to be levied to int…

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 793/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &
Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

…ties below is bad in law for want of requisite jurisdiction. 13.The learned CIT(A) ought to have given a finding on the validity of search. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C Ramaiah Reddy vs. ACIT reported in 339 ITR 210. 14. The authorities below erred in not providing the copy of reasons recorded even after specific request made by the appellant under the facts of the case. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DGIT vs. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 374 ITR 595. 15.The appellant denies himself liable to be levied to int…

Shri. K. Somasekhar, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 988/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri K. Somasekhar, The Deputy “Dwaraka Mayee”, Commissioner Of Joladarashi Guda, Income Tax, Vs. Vivekananda Nagar, Central Circle – 1 Hospet. (1), Pan: Alups3545F Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G.S, Ca : Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel Revenue By & Shri Dilip, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CA
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid and to assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. ACIT, reported in 339 ITR 210. iv. The authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. v. The order of the assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Ltd, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 819/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…orted in 260 ITR 80. The finding of the learned A.O. that the validity of search could not 6. be questioned by relying upon several decisions is erroneous and is contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of RAMAIH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and therefore, the assessment requires to be cancelled. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble 7. CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. For the above and other grou…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Ltd, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 818/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…orted in 260 ITR 80. The finding of the learned A.O. that the validity of search could not 6. be questioned by relying upon several decisions is erroneous and is contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of RAMAIH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and therefore, the assessment requires to be cancelled. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble 7. CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. For the above and other grou…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 776/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…orted in 260 ITR 80. The finding of the learned A.O. that the validity of search could not 6. be questioned by relying upon several decisions is erroneous and is contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of RAMAIH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and therefore, the assessment requires to be cancelled. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble 7. CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. For the above and other grou…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 774/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…orted in 260 ITR 80. The finding of the learned A.O. that the validity of search could not 6. be questioned by relying upon several decisions is erroneous and is contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of RAMAIH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and therefore, the assessment requires to be cancelled. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble 7. CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. For the above and other grou…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 773/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…orted in 260 ITR 80. The finding of the learned A.O. that the validity of search could not 6. be questioned by relying upon several decisions is erroneous and is contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of RAMAIH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and therefore, the assessment requires to be cancelled. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble 7. CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. For the above and other grou…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 772/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…orted in 260 ITR 80. The finding of the learned A.O. that the validity of search could not 6. be questioned by relying upon several decisions is erroneous and is contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of RAMAIH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and therefore, the assessment requires to be cancelled. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble 7. CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. For the above and other grou…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. K.R. Venkatesh Gowda/S, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 415/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, 339 ITR 210. 4. Without prejudice the appellant denies himself liable to be assessed over and above the total income of Rs. 2,07,430/- as reported by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in making an addition of Rs 37,91,967/- as undisclosed income from profession witho…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. K.R. Venkatesh Gowda/S, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 412/BANG/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, 339 ITR 210. 4. Without prejudice the appellant denies himself liable to be assessed over and above the total income of Rs. 2,07,430/- as reported by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in making an addition of Rs 37,91,967/- as undisclosed income from profession witho…

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 341/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, 339 ITR 210. 4. Without prejudice the appellant denies himself liable to be assessed over and above the total income of Rs. 2,07,430/- as reported by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in making an addition of Rs 37,91,967/- as undisclosed income from profession witho…

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 340/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, 339 ITR 210. 4. Without prejudice the appellant denies himself liable to be assessed over and above the total income of Rs. 2,07,430/- as reported by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in making an addition of Rs 37,91,967/- as undisclosed income from profession witho…

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 339/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, 339 ITR 210. 4. Without prejudice the appellant denies himself liable to be assessed over and above the total income of Rs. 2,07,430/- as reported by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in making an addition of Rs 37,91,967/- as undisclosed income from profession witho…