Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT

204 ITR 631Supreme Court of India1993#473 most cited

What is Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT authority for?

The determinative test for whether land is agricultural land or a capital asset is its actual user for agricultural purposes, not merely ownership. An explicit intention to stop cultivation or convert the land to non-agricultural use can cause it to lose its agricultural character, making its sale proceeds chargeable to capital gains tax.

197

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT · Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim · Section 2(14) · agricultural land definition · capital asset · actual user of land · intention to cultivate · capital gains tax on land sale · exemption for agricultural land · conversion of agricultural land · land character

Also reported as

70 Taxmann 301

Sections most often in play

Section 2(14)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 54BSection 148Section 63Section 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 56(2)(ix)section 2(14)(iii)section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 45(5a)section 115adsection 63cash found during searchsection 2(1a)section 2(14)section 2(1)section 96

Judgments citing Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5377/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

M/S. Keerthi International Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5375/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

M/S. Nova Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5364/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Smt. Shobha Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5362/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Smt. Puja Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5361/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Smt. Puja Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5360/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Sh. Kapil Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5315/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Sh. Kapil Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5314/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Smt. Aarti Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5313/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Smt. Aarti Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5312/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Chettinad Builders P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1919/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1919/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Chettinad Builders P. Ltd. [Now The Deputy Commissioner Of Merged With M/S. Chettinad Products Vs. Income Tax & Services P. Ltd.], 5Th Floor, Rani Corporate Circle 1(2), Seethai Hall, 603, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaccc4133B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 30.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Effective Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹.39,08,750/- Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D & Confirmation Of Addition To Income From Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘ए” "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1919/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. Chettinad Builders P. Ltd. [Now The Deputy Commissioner of Merged with M/s. Chettinad Products Vs. Income Tax, and Services P. Ltd.], 5th Floor, Rani Corporate Circle 1(2), Seethai Hall, 603, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [PAN:AACCC4133B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की…

Smt. Nima Somabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1301/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1301/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2012 Smt. Nima Somabhai Patel, Income-Tax Officer, 13, Shubhash Society, Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), B/H. Ishwar Bhuvan, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Acmpp1832B

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Parekh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

…Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466. The constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the meaning of the expression "agricultural land" which was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631/70 Taxman 301 as under :— 'On an appeal, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that: Inasmuch as agricultural land is exempted from the purview of the definition of the expression "assets", it is "impossible to adopt so wide a test as would obviously defeat the purpose of the exemption given". The idea behind exempting the agricultural land is…

Shri Devendra Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 654/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asha Bhargava Cuke D.C.I.T. Vs. L/R Of Devendra Kumar Bhargava, Circle-2 E-81, Devashish, Radha Marg, Jaipur. Ambabari, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abspb 6891 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 05/03/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken:

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 654/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asha Bhargava cuke D.C.I.T. Vs. L/R of Devendra Kumar Bhargava, Circle-2 E-81, Devashish, Radha Marg, Jaipur. Ambabari, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABSPB 6891 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls…

Shri Santhosh Meenakshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3, Coimbatore

ITA 2841/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriv.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2841/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Shri Santhosh Meenakshi Textiles Vs Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd. Corporate Ward-3, 15, Sehuram , Sundresa Iyer Layout Coimbatore. Trichy Road, Coimbatore-641 018. Pan: Aajcs 4184M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Chandrababu, Addl CITFor Respondent: 22.02.2021

…ade and resulted income is assessable as income from business. To arrive at such conclusion, she had taken support from certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim Vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC). The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under:- “13. From the above discussions it is clear that the assessee company has not done any agricultural activities in the land acquired, nor had any intention of doing any agricultural activities and hence cannot claim the sale proceeds of the land as exempted, being agricultural la…

Ashok Kumar Malhotra, Dhanbad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Dhanbad

ITA 38/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy)

Section 133(6)Section 2Section 250

…ral land and hence a capital asset, the transfer of which results in capital gain subject to tax. She pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC) and another judgements and applied the propositions of law laid down therein to the facts of this case and come to a conclusion that the land in question is agricultural land. She submitted that the asset is a residential bungalow surrounded by mango, guava and other gardens. She prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 4. In reply…

G Vijay Padma, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 3295/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaismt. G Vijay Padma, No.206, 1St Floor, 10Th D Main, 5Th Cross, 1St Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011 Pan Abcpv 8123E ….Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Bengaluru. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri P. R. Mathad, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri P. R. Mathad, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54F

…ral land’ is not defined in the Act, and now, whether it is agricultural land or not has got to be determined by using the tests or methods laid down by the Courts from time to time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. 11 Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (204 ITR 631) has approved the decision of a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai (1982) 28 CTR (Guj) 148 : (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj) and has laid down 13 tests or factors which are required to be considered and upon consideration of which, the question whether the land is an agricultural land or not has go…

Mr. Jairam G. Kimmane, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2026/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(14)

…ssessee has not purchased the land at Agarsure with a view to use it for agricultural purposes. In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case taken together with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarif Abibi Ibrahim 204 ITR 631 (SC) (1993), the land at Agarsure is treated as non-agricultural. Consequently, the same is brought to tax as long - term capital gains. The Long Term Capital Gains is worked out as under:” Sale Consideration (F.Y.2012-13) Rs.2,00,00,000 Cost of acquisition (F.Y.1996-97) Rs.659286 Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 659286 X 852 Rs.18,41,678 305 Rs…

ITO, Ncw - 1 (5), Chennai vs. Ms. Esther Jasper, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2856/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Ms. Vijaya Prabha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.A
Section 143(3)

…viii. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the lands transacted are Agricultural lands, when the transaction of the assessee fails in majority of the tests as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohammad Ibrahim & others (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC). 4. It was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the assessee had sold 14 acres of land, which was classified as residential land. It was a submission that the learned CIT(A) had allowed the assessee’s appeal by simply following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the 263 matter, wherein the Tribunal h…

ITO, Ncw - 1 (5), Chennai vs. Ms. Esther Jasper, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2855/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Ms. Vijaya Prabha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.A
Section 143(3)

…viii. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the lands transacted are Agricultural lands, when the transaction of the assessee fails in majority of the tests as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohammad Ibrahim & others (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC). 4. It was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the assessee had sold 14 acres of land, which was classified as residential land. It was a submission that the learned CIT(A) had allowed the assessee’s appeal by simply following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the 263 matter, wherein the Tribunal h…

Dappu Ashok (HUF), Hyderabad vs. Asst.CIT, Circle -8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 60/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.No. ITA No. AY Assessee Respondent 1. 1001/H/11 2007-08 Kandada Babu Asst. Rao (HUF), Commissioner RR District. of Income-tax, PAN– Circle – 8(1), AANHK066K Hyderabad. 2 913/H/12 2007-08 Mali -do- Chandrasekhar (HUF), RR Dist. PAN- ASKPM0486A 3 914/H/12 2007-08 Mali Narasimha -do- (HUF), RR Dist. 4 1541/H/13 2007-08 Konde Mallesh -do- (HUF), RR Dist. PAN- AYVPK8914E 5 1539/H/13 2007-08 Konde Anjaiah -do- (HUF), RR Dist. PAN- AYWPK0258J 6 1540/H/13 2007-08…