SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house properties and not just one Held, yes [Para 17] [In favour of assessee] The case law placed reliance by Ld CIT (Appeals) vide at Pg No 14 of the order by P&H High Court in Pawan Arya v/s CIT 237 ITR 2010 pronounced on 13/12/2010 may not get credence as series of cases by the apex court thereafter

K S VENKATESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

200A as indicated under section1(a)(2) to (8) of Section 154 in order to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. Thus, keeping in mind this tenor of the language used in section 154, the facts on hand are required to be examined. 9. In the instant case the rectification proceeding was invoked by the jurisdictional Assessing officer

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 1, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

housing loans. We are therefore of the considered view that assessee has properly explained the sources of cash with respect to the withdrawals made by the assessee during July 2016 aggregating to Rs. 15,00,000/- and hence we consider amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as properly explained by the assessee. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to allow amount

INDIRA VOONA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 244/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Indira Voona V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 3(1) Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward -1 Indira Voona V. Visakhapatnam Plot No. 24, Sector 12 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aewpv1518E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

housing loans. We are therefore of the considered view that assessee has properly explained the sources of cash with respect to the withdrawals made by the assessee during July 2016 aggregating to Rs. 15,00,000/- and hence we consider amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as properly explained by the assessee. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to allow amount

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

HOUSING COLONY, KADABETTU, UDUPI-586 101. 4. SRI ARNOLD D’SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI LOUIS D’SILVA, RESIDING AT 12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

HOUSING COLONY, KADABETTU, UDUPI-586 101. 4. SRI ARNOLD D’SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI LOUIS D’SILVA, RESIDING AT 12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

HOUSING COLONY, KADABETTU, UDUPI-586 101. 4. SRI ARNOLD D’SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI LOUIS D’SILVA, RESIDING AT 12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

HOUSING COLONY, KADABETTU, UDUPI-586 101. 4. SRI ARNOLD D’SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI LOUIS D’SILVA, RESIDING AT 12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING