Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar v. ITO

466 ITR 238High Court#25073 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 151 section 148 section 147 section 14 india nfac document

Judgments citing Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar v. ITO

Rupa Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 4750/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4750/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80I

…ourt in the case of Tumukar Minerals Ltd. reported in 456 ITR 286 (Вот.) • Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rajshree Realtors P Ltd. reported in 334 CTR 866 (Вот.) • Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Sumita Purshottam Virgincar reported in 466 ITR 238 (Bom.) • Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Patel Engineering Ltd. reported in 446 ITR 728 (Bom.) • Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) • Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Capegemini India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 232 Taxтап 149 (Bombay High Court) • Hon'ble Bombay High Court i…

Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 672/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vinay Bhamore & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.672/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.183/3, Omkar Near S Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Ganga Hospital, A Ward Dudhali, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Asipv6553D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing None Shri Aknath Abhang – Addl.Cit(Dr) 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 21.01.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68

…is no application of mind by the ITO-Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Had the ITO perused the copy of purchase agreement, he would have understood the nature of transaction. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the decision of Smt.Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Vs. ITO 466 ITR 238 vide order dated 04.07.2024 has observed as under : “19. The next reason cited by the Revenue for rejecting the explanation is, "Copy of the Sale Deed was not available at the time of recording of reasons". We find that even such reasoning is fallacious and not tenable in law. The information from the office of the Sub Registrar's for any registr…

Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(2), Pune

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.540/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni, Flat No.3, Hermes Grandstand Society, Kavade Maal Sopan Baug, Pune Cantt East So., Pune 411001. Pan: Atjpk4884A Appellant/ Assessee V The Income Tax Officer, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kartik Natrajan – Ca/Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Dated 05/03/2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

…has been compelled to decide this frivolous matter wasting its precious time and energy which could have been utilized in more pressing matters." Unquote. 9.3 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed in the case of Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Vs. ITO 466 ITR 238 (Bom) vide order dated JULY 4, 2024 as under : Quote, “ 9. The next reason cited by the Revenue for rejecting the explanation is, "Copy of the Sale Deed was not available at the time of recording of reasons". We find that even such reasoning is fallacious and not tenable in law. The information from the office of the Sub Registrar's for any regis…