Abhyudaya Pharmaceuticals v. CIT

32 Taxmann.com 68High Court2013#11942 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also reported as

350 ITR 358

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

unexplained cash credit section 68 section 69 previous year person company india business document

Judgments citing Abhyudaya Pharmaceuticals v. CIT

J.K.V. Stonex, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: ShriSandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 542/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. J K V Stonex cuke The ITO Vs. J-16, M/s. SCLJ & Associates Ward- 1 Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur-302015 Kishangarh LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFJ 1014 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :ShriSandeep Jhanwar, CA jktLo dh vksjl…

Gazal Caterers, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7752/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

…ITO vs. M/s. Nithyasudha Combines I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 dated 06.05.2022 (ITAT, Chennai Bench) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad Vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance, (1983), 141 ITR 706 (Allahabad High Court) (iv) Abhyudaya Pharmaceuticals vs. CIT, 350 ITR 358 (Allahabad High Court) (v) Zafa Ahmed & Company vs. CIT, 93 DTR 29 (Allahabad High Court) (vi) ITO Vs. Dhiman Systems, 100 TTJ 466 (ITAT, Amritsar Bench) 21. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee firm is directly covered by above judicial decisions and the addition deserves to be deleted. 22. Per contra, the…

Clavecon India P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1908/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1907/DEL/2022 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 1908/DEL/2022 [A.Y. 2015-16] Clavecon India P Ltd. Vs The D.C.I.T H – 401, Jaipuria Sunrise Greens Central Circle Near CISF, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad PAN: AAFCC 2403 F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Ms. Shweta Bansal, CA Shri Sudharshan Roy, Adv Department By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06.10.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIY…

Clavecon India P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1907/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

M/S Central India Minerals, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 1(4), Nagpur

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 168/NAG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.R

Section 144Section 153CSection 292CSection 68

…these sums as unexplained cash credits in the nature of addition to the capital account of the assessee firm’s partner Smt. Kusum N. Daga. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments as a catena of case law i.e., Abhyudaya Pharmaceuticals vs., CIT [2013] 350 ITR 358 (Alld.); CIT vs., M.Venkateswara Rao & Others [2015] 370 ITR 212 [T & A.P]; CIT vs., Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) and PCIT vs., Vaishnodevi Refoils and Stuff Ltd., [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80 (Guj.) has unanimously settled the issue that such an addition involving partner’s capital account of a firm has to be made in the partner’s hands t…

M/S Central India Minerals, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 1(4), Nagpur

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 167/NAG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.R

Section 144Section 153CSection 292CSection 68

Lakshya Educational Trust, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4128/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 68

…that no such addition can be made which has been received before the start of activities or even soon after the start of activities. The AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abhudaya Pharmaceuticals vs. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 358 (All) and Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Company (1972) 83 ITR 187. The detailed submission has been reproduced as above. 12. The facts of the case on the above issues have been gone in detail with the material on record. On going through the documents furnished by the appellant in respect of Attol…

M/S Mool Chand Textiles, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Hapur

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

ITA 4583/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Mool Chand Textiles, Vs Ito, Pilkhuwa, Ward-1, Ghaziabad. Hapur. Pan: Aabfm3097Q

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath &For Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mool Chand Textiles, Vs ITO, Pilkhuwa, Ward-1, Ghaziabad. Hapur. PAN: AABFM3097Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Sampath & Shri Raj Kumar, Advocates Revenue by : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th April, 2013 of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, relating to assessment year 2008-09. 2.…

M/S Karni Maa International, Jaipur vs. The ITO, Ward 6 (2), Jaipur

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

ITA 527/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)

Section 144Section 40A(3)

…IT vs. Kewal Krishan & Partners 18DTR 121. • CIT vs. Pandian Distributors 259ITR 428. • India Rice Mills v. CIT 218 ITR 508,511. • CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. 294ITR 661. 9 ITA 527/JP/15_ M/s Karni Maa International Vs. ITO • Abhudaya Pharmaceuticals v. CIT 32 Taxmann.com 68. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is not obliged to establish the source of course in as much as this is the first year of operation of assessee’s business. Even otherwise the assessee has satisfactorily explained the availability of funds in the hands of the partners accordingly, he has pleaded that the addition sustained…