How many judgments cite Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals (123 ITR 874), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 271(1)(c), Section 148, Section 273(b), Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals

123 ITR 874High Court1980#3218 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power under Section 263 of the Act, if the AO had not initiated such proceedings in the assessment order.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals · 123 ITR 874 · section 263 · section 271(1)(c) · revisionary power · initiation of penalty proceedings · assessment order · Commissioner of Income Tax

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 271(1)(c)Section 148 Section 273(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271aab(1a)assessment order erroneous under-reporting of income revision under section 263 penalty under section 270a section 271aab penalty u/s 270a section 271aac section 271aa section 271a erroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHAN RAO KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRLCE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

…Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra PrasadSingh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.),Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. NathoolalBalaram [1980] 125 ITR 596/3 Taxman 170 (MP.) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Offi…

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHANA RAO KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

KOTI NARASIMHA REDDY GUTTIKONDA,GUNTUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.332/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. Cit 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [Pan: Amcpg7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain [1980] 125 ITR 373/[1981] 5 Taxman 92 (MP.) and Addl. CWT v. Nathoolal Balaram [1980] 125 ITR 596/3 Taxman 170 (MP.) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Of…

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

…proposition that initiation of penalty proceedings under wrong section or non- initiation of penal proceedings cannot be cured by provisions of section 263 of the Act. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case, of Addi CIT Vs Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of (2005)275 ITR (All) had taken a view that non-initiation of penalty proceedings is sufficient reason for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. In the case of Surendra Prasad Agarwal (supra), the Hon'ble High Court had considered several decisions quoted by the assessee in its favour. D…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

…hati in Surendra Prasad Singh and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT v. Nathoolal Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Officer…

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271ASection 69A

…d the material available on record. We find that ld. PCIT (Central), Pune in his order has relied on following judgements passed by Hon’ble Courts such as :- (i) CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal, 275 ITR 113 (All.). 6 (ii) Addl.CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals, 123 ITR 874 (MP). (iii) Addl.CIT vs. Kantilal Jain, 125 ITR 373 (MP). (iv) Jyoti Ranjan Roy, vs. PCIT, ITA No.1015/Kol/2017. (v) CIT vs. Ashok Construction Company, 280 ITR 368 (All). (vi) CIT vs. Associated Contractors Corpn. 275 ITR 123 (All). 9. On the other hand Ld. Counsel of the assessee also relied on various judgements / decisions (cited supra) in su…

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

…on to the relevant order of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Harish Jain & Others supra. 6. On the other hand, the Id.CIT-DR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl.CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals reported in [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP) and also the order of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.959/Mum/2022, dated 20.02.2023. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the assessment order passed by the AO u/s.153C of the Act dated 28.03.2022 and noted that the ad…

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 502/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…n requirements specified in the case of M/s. Malabar Industries Co Ltd vs. CIT (2000) 109 taxman 66(SC) are satisfied. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in the cases of ACIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) and ACIT vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and followed in some other cases. Page 3 of 7 ITA Nos. 501 & 502/Hyd/2023 5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Having regard to the contentions on either side, we find the issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether t…

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 501/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271A

…1) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Addll. CIT vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT vs. Nathoolal Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act…

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 231/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…ta reported in Court in CIT Vs. Surenda Prasad (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) Agarwal (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All) Judgment of Delhi High Court in Judgment of MP High Court in ACIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain ACIT Vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) (Del) Judgment of Rajasthan High Judgment of MP High Court in Court in CIT Vs. Keshrimal ACIT Vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 Parasmal reported in (1986) ITR 373 (MP) 157 ITR 484 (Raj) Judgment of Madras High Court Judgment of MP High Court in in CIT Vs. CRK Swamy reported ACWT Vs. Nathoolal Balaram in (2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.) (1980) 125 ITR 5…

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

…hati in Surendra Prasad Singh and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT v. Nathoolal Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Officer t…