Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT

123 ITR 457Supreme Court of India1980#450 most cited

What is Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT authority for?

Penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings recorded in assessment proceedings are relevant but not conclusive for penalty proceedings.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT · penalty proceedings · assessment proceedings · separate and distinct · findings not conclusive · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 270A · quantum proceedings · penalty assessment distinction

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 143(2)Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 270(a)record datesection 270a(8)section 270a(6)section 114section 270a(9)section 271(l)(c)section 142(2a)section 269ssdumb documentspenalty u/s 270asection 245

Judgments citing Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. SHALIMAR CORP. LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3068/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…d the benefit of telescoping of cash generated prior to the period of search, for cash deposits of Rs 49.30 crore made in the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y 2017-18, misconstruing the apex court decision in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. versus CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC). The ld AR stated that in the said case, the Supreme Court has held that any availability of fund out of intangible additions in the preceding years cannot, in all cases, imply that the assessee has not earned further secret profits during the relevant assessment year and there should be overall consideration of peculiar facts and circumstan…

SHALIMAR CORP LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2769/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…d the benefit of telescoping of cash generated prior to the period of search, for cash deposits of Rs 49.30 crore made in the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y 2017-18, misconstruing the apex court decision in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. versus CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC). The ld AR stated that in the said case, the Supreme Court has held that any availability of fund out of intangible additions in the preceding years cannot, in all cases, imply that the assessee has not earned further secret profits during the relevant assessment year and there should be overall consideration of peculiar facts and circumstan…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

ITA 684/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ent year have the same concrete existence to be telescoping against other\nresulting income. It has been held that they are as much a part of real\nincome. This was the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Anantharam\nVeerasinhaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC)\"\n12. The response of the assessee has been examined thoroughly, by the assessing\nofficer. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee-firm is first\ncontending that since it is incorporated recently and it did not have any apparent\nsources of income earned from any other sources to pay the unaccounted payment\nfor land as…

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

ITA 512/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147

…e the same concrete existence to be telescoped against other\naddition resulting in income. It has been held that they are as much a part of real\nincome. This was the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Anantharam\nVeerasinghaiah & Co. V. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC)™.\n\n12. The response of the assessee has been examined thoroughly, by the assessing\nofficer. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee-firm is first\ncontending that since it is incorporated recently and it did not have any apparent\nsources of income earned from any other sources to pay the unaccounted payment\nfor land a…

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

ITA 511/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ve the same concrete existence to be telescoped against other\naddition resulting in income. It has been held that they are as much a part of real\nincome. This was the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Anantharam\nVeerasinhaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC)“\n12. The response of the assessee has been examined thoroughly, by the assessing\nofficer. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee-firm is first\ncontending that since it is incorporated recently and it did not have any apparent\nsources of income earned from any other sources to pay the unaccounted payment\nfor land as a…

DHANSAMRIDHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(2), NEW DELHI , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1377/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ITR 78. 6. That the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is legally unsustainable on account of Respondent's failure to establish any concealment of alleged income by the Appellant vide Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC). 7. That the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and interest u/s. 234 of the Act is ex facie unsustainable in law as the very foundation of such proceedings namely, the impugned assessment order and impugned addition therein are without jurisdiction and contrary to law, facts and evidence filed in support thereof…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…used the material placed before us. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by b the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that, that the secret profits or undisclose…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…perused the material placed before us. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by b the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that, that the secret profits or undisclosed…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…used the material placed before us. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by b the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that, that the secret profits or undisclose…

PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…used the material placed before us. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by b the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that, that the secret profits or undisclose…

PERIASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…used the material placed before us. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by b the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that, that the secret profits or undisclose…

ACIT , CHENNAI vs. RAJAGOPALAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1443/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट" वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1443/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Rajagopalan, Central Circle 3(4), vs. Old No.38/2, New No. 60, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar S.O., Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AAEPR-4969-B] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) "नधा%*रती क, ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A राज"व क, ओर से /Revenue b…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…d quantum proceedings are independent and that findings in the quantum proceedings, 9 though relevant, are not conclusive or determinative of the penalty proceedings. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 86 ITR 376 (SC) CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa ii) 123 ITR 457 (SC) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 519 (SC) Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT iv) 292 ITR 11 (SC) T. Ashok Pai v. CIT v) 190 Taxman 157 (Del) CIT v. Arctic Investment (P) Ltd. vi) 145 Taxman 530 (Del) CIT v. Globe Sales Corporation vii) 219 ITR 267 (Del) CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Limited viii) 160 ITR 94 (AP) (FB) CIT V. H. Abdul Bakshi ix)…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…cer in each of the years involved in appeal. To canvass the fact that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anantharaman Veerasinghaiah & Co. v C.I.T [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as follows: “6. …….In the penalty proceeding the taxing authority is bound to consider the matter afresh in the material before it and, in the light of the burden to prove resting on the Revenue, to ascertain whether a particular amount is a revenue receipt. No doubt, the fact that the assessme…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…cer in each of the years involved in appeal. To canvass the fact that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anantharaman Veerasinghaiah & Co. v C.I.T [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as follows: “6. …….In the penalty proceeding the taxing authority is bound to consider the matter afresh in the material before it and, in the light of the burden to prove resting on the Revenue, to ascertain whether a particular amount is a revenue receipt. No doubt, the fact that the assessme…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…cer in each of the years involved in appeal. To canvass the fact that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anantharaman Veerasinghaiah & Co. v C.I.T [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as follows: “6. …….In the penalty proceeding the taxing authority is bound to consider the matter afresh in the material before it and, in the light of the burden to prove resting on the Revenue, to ascertain whether a particular amount is a revenue receipt. No doubt, the fact that the assessme…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…cer in each of the years involved in appeal. To canvass the fact that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anantharaman Veerasinghaiah & Co. v C.I.T [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as follows: “6. …….In the penalty proceeding the taxing authority is bound to consider the matter afresh in the material before it and, in the light of the burden to prove resting on the Revenue, to ascertain whether a particular amount is a revenue receipt. No doubt, the fact that the assessme…

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…the Tribunal was right in\ntreating the unexplained cash credit entries to the extent of Rs.16,950 as\ncovered by added gross profit in the sum of Rs.18,117 on the basis of the\nestimate.—Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 187 :\n(1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) : TC42R.1331 relied on.\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SINGHAL INDUSTRIAL\nCORPORATION\nHIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD\nR.K. Agrawal & Rajes Kumar, JJ.\nIT Ref. No. 100 of 1993\nJul 8, 2005\n(2005) 73 CCH 0659 AllHC\n(2005) 199 CTR 0690, (2008) 303 ITR 0225, (2006) 150 TAXMAN 0466\nLegislation Referred to\nSection 68\nCase pertains to\nAsst. Yea…

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…, the Tribunal was right in treating the unexplained cash credit entries to the extent of Rs. 16,950 as covered by added gross profit in the sum of Rs. 18,117 on the basis of the estimate.—Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 187 : (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) : TC42R.1331 relied on. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SINGHAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD R.K. Agrawal & Rajes Kumar, JJ. IT Ref. No. 100 of 1993 Jul 8, 2005 (2005) 73 CCH 0659 AllHC (2005) 199 CTR 0690, (2008) 303 ITR 0225, (2006) 150 TAXMAN 0466 Legislation Referred to Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 198…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the all the appeals filed by the assessee is is partly allowed

ITA 1396/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…has since been judicially approved b the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is assessee offers any in…

Showing 1–20 of 202 · Page 1 of 11

...
Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT (123 ITR 457) — Cited in 202 Judgments | BharatTax