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.

How many judgments cite Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT?

202 judgments on BharatTax cite Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT (123 ITR 457), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153A, Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 147, Section 271(1)(c), Section 69A.

Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT (123 ITR 457)

DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashutosh P Bhatt, Mumbai

In the result, we hereby uphold the plea of assessee and Revenue fails

ITA 1104/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Ripote

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…. has no bearing so far as the efficacy of the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, which is not only a separate but also an independent proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasingaiah and Co. vs CIT, 123 ITR 457 (SC). In fact, non-furnishing of the required information by the assessee in the assessment proceedings has not distracted the Assessing Officer from assessing the impugned income and, therefore, in the penalty proceedings it was for the Assessing Officer to establish that the particulars of income filed by the assessee 18 Shri Ashutosh P. Bhat…

DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Ashutosh P Bhatt, Mumbai

In the result, we hereby uphold the plea of assessee and Revenue fails

ITA 6034/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Ripote

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…. has no bearing so far as the efficacy of the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, which is not only a separate but also an independent proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasingaiah and Co. vs CIT, 123 ITR 457 (SC). In fact, non-furnishing of the required information by the assessee in the assessment proceedings has not distracted the Assessing Officer from assessing the impugned income and, therefore, in the penalty proceedings it was for the Assessing Officer to establish that the particulars of income filed by the assessee 18 Shri Ashutosh P. Bhat…

Chains Corner Jewellery (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5703/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanjukta Chowdhury, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Maurya Pratap, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 271A

…income. If the above three conditions are satisfied penalty u/s 271AAA (i.e. 10 per cent of “undisclosed income” of the “specified previous year”) can be avoided. 6.1 As pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457,462 (SC), the findings recorded in the assessment order constitute good evidence in the penalty proceedings but those findings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. 6.2 The only dispute here is that the assessee has failed to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. We find that…

Rochem Separation Systems (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1661/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 Rochem Separation Systems Acit Cen Cir 10 (I) P. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Cgo Bldg. बनाम/ 101 Hdil Tower, Anant Annex, M. K. Marg, Vs. Kanekar Marg, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400050 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr1955P Appellant By Shri S.C. Gupta (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Revenue By 04/10/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 19/10/2016

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(24)(iv)Section 271(1)(c)

…are different from assessment proceedings. The finding given in the assessment though is a good evidence but the same is not conclusive in penalty proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT ((1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC). 8. In the instant case the penalty has been imposed on the sustenance of disallowance of higher education expenses amounting to Rs.14,35,000/- claimed by the assessee on the education of Ms. Janaki Motasha, daughter of one of the Directors of the company. We further find that there is no dispute that in support of the claim of deduction, th…

Rochem Separation Systems (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1660/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 Rochem Separation Systems Acit Cen Cir 10 (I) P. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Cgo Bldg. बनाम/ 101 Hdil Tower, Anant Annex, M. K. Marg, Vs. Kanekar Marg, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400050 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr1955P Appellant By Shri S.C. Gupta (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Revenue By 04/10/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 19/10/2016

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(24)(iv)Section 271(1)(c)

…are different from assessment proceedings. The finding given in the assessment though is a good evidence but the same is not conclusive in penalty proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT ((1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC). 8. In the instant case the penalty has been imposed on the sustenance of disallowance of higher education expenses amounting to Rs.14,35,000/- claimed by the assessee on the education of Ms. Janaki Motasha, daughter of one of the Directors of the company. We further find that there is no dispute that in support of the claim of deduction, th…

Karamjit Singh Dhanjal, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sachdev, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…ch circumstances, we are of the opinion that no penalty is leviable. It is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ananthraman Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs. CIT, 123 ITR 457, the finding in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purposes of the penalty proceedings. It is, therefore, necessary to reappreciate and reconsider the matter so as to find out as to whether the addition made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as envisaged in…

Jayant B Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC13, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed,

ITA 5547/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5547, 5548, 5553/Mum/2012 & Ita No.7525/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :200102, 200304 & 200708) Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Vs. Acit, Cc13, Mumbai Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5455 To 5461/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :200102 To 200708) Acit, Cc13, Mumbai Vs. Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5549 To 5552, 5554/Mum/2012 &7524/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :200102, 200304 200405,200607 & 200708) Jayant B. Patel, B/27, Clifton Vs. Acit, Cc13, Mumbai Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp 6414 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivaram & Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2016

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…eference to the cash found during the course of search. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Kuppuswami Mudaliar, 51 ITR 757, which was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantram Veerasinghiah, 123 ITR 457. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Venkateswar Timber Depot, 222 ITR 768 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K.S.M.Guruswamy Nadar & Sons, 149 ITR 127. 14. We had carefully gone through orders of authorities below and also considered the rival contentions. We had also deliberate…

A.C.I.T. Cent.Cir.13, Mumbai vs. Jayant B. Patel(HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed,

ITA 5455/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5547, 5548, 5553/Mum/2012 & Ita No.7525/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :200102, 200304 & 200708) Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Vs. Acit, Cc13, Mumbai Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5455 To 5461/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :200102 To 200708) Acit, Cc13, Mumbai Vs. Jayant B. Patel Huf, B/27, Clifton Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahj 1081 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5549 To 5552, 5554/Mum/2012 &7524/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :200102, 200304 200405,200607 & 200708) Jayant B. Patel, B/27, Clifton Vs. Acit, Cc13, Mumbai Society, Near Centuar Hotel, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai49 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp 6414 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivaram & Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2016

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…eference to the cash found during the course of search. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Kuppuswami Mudaliar, 51 ITR 757, which was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantram Veerasinghiah, 123 ITR 457. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Venkateswar Timber Depot, 222 ITR 768 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K.S.M.Guruswamy Nadar & Sons, 149 ITR 127. 14. We had carefully gone through orders of authorities below and also considered the rival contentions. We had also deliberate…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-07 vs. M/S Omni Info World Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/364/2016HC Delhi29 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132

…the ITAT states to the contrary. There is not a single line in the memorandum of appeal before this Court to that effect. Learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the decision in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AP (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) which spoke of the inference to be drawn when an intangible addition is to be made to the book profits, on the basis that the amount represented by that addition constitutes the undisclosed income. ITA 364/2016 P…

Sri. T. Thimmegowda vs. ITO, Bangalore

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 272/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri D. Devaraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147

…e was sale consideration in respect of sale of property which has been brought to tax by the AO, the benefit of telescoping should be given, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. v. CIT (123 ITR 457 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- ITA No.272 & 273/Bang/2013 Page 7 of 9 “There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in an earlier assessment year may constitute a fund, even though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently for meeting e…

Spl Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5655/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Spl Industries Ltd., 5/66, Kc Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, House, 3Rd Floor, Padam Singh Circle-9(1), New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0343R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Syed Nasir, Acit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2016 Order

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

…d the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ananthraman & Co. Vs. CIT- 123 ITR 457, the finding in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purposes of the penalty proceedings. It is, therefore, necessary to re-appreciate and reconsider the matter also as to find out as to whether the addition made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as engaged in…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rama Krishna Jeweller (India), New Delhi

In the result, we confirm the finding of ld

ITA 5417/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 153A

…ast issue of whether the assessee is eligible for telescoping of the disclosure made by the assessee of Rs 2.5 Crore which has been owned by the assessee as disclosed in statement u/s 132 (4) of the act. Hon Supreme court in AnnatharamVeerasinghaiaa& co V CIT 123 ITR 457 on issue of telescoping has held that “There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in an earlier assessment year may constitute a fund, even though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently for meeting expenditure or introducing amounts in his account books. But it…

M/S. Meerut Agro Chemical Industries Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2476/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…me or it is of concealment of income. He further submitted that it is well settled law that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anatharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT 123 ITR 457. He further submitted that condition for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is formation of opinion and recording of satisfaction before conclusion of the proceedings and not at the time of issuance of notice or intimation of penalty proceedings. Whereas in the present case, the Assessing Officer did not record his satisfaction for in…

Rheema Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, except for A

ITA 4163/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr.No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 292

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “डी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी डी. म"मोहन, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM Sr.No. ITA Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Ys. Rheema Hassan Ali Khan Dy. CIT, Central 39C, Anand Darshan, Circle-2, Old CGO 13, Peddar Road, Annex Bld.g, M. K. 2001-02 to 1. 4163-4169/M/10 Mumbai-400 026 Road, Mumbai 2007-08 PAN No. AOMPK 8156 M अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : None (written submissions) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Girish Dave & Ms.Kadambari Dave सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.02.2016 Date o…

Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4156/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 153A

…e jeopardy. Be that as it may, we have already restored the assessment on some grounds, while confirming some additions. The principles of telescoping are well laid out by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC). The AO shall, in the set aside proceedings, consider the assessee’s case in this respect, where one is made out, in accordance with law. This disposes the assessee’s said ground, as well as similar ground/s for other years as well, where we observe the assessee contends of an addition as having been already returned, i.e., forming part of h…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

ITTA/283/2010HC Telangana17 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

M/S Roger Enterpriese P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi

ITA/439/2003HC Delhi04 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 143Section 148Section 260A

…esent case the Revenue had been unable to show that a false claim was made. Reliance was placed on the decisions in CIT v. Somnath Oil Mills (1995) 214 ITR 32 (Guj), MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), Anantharam Veerasinghaiah v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC), Union of India v. Dharmender Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). 40. In reply, it is submitted by Ms. Gurung, learned counsel for the Revenue, that after the insertion of Explanation 1 to Section 271 (1), wilful concealment was not an essential ingredient for attracting penalty. She referred to the decision in Chairman, SEBI…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Spl Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4927/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv

Section 271(1)(c)

…d the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ananthraman & Co. Vs. CIT- 123 ITR 457, the finding in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purposes of the penalty proceedings. It is, therefore, necessary to re-appreciate and reconsider the matter also as to find out as to whether the addition made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as engaged in…

Kanchenjunga Advertising Pvt Ltd

ITA/944/2011HC Delhi13 Jan 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…696, CIT v. Khoday ITA No.944/2011 Page 11 of 19 Eswarsa and Sons ( 1970) 83 ITR 369, and Anantharam Veerasinghaiam & Co. v. CIT (1980)123 ITR 457). It is also well settled that for the purpose of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the mere making of an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Where the assessee has submitted all the material and relevant facts relating to the claim and has made a complete disclosure, but takes a legal contention…

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

ITA/296/2006HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

Section 133(6)Section 271

…ITA No.367/2004 & 296/2006 Page 1 of 42 REPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 367/2004 M/s. Devsons Pvt. Ltd. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.O.S. Bajpai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. V.N. Jha, Advocate. versus Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate. AND + ITA No. 296/2006 Commissioner of Income Tax ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate. versus M/s. D…

Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT

DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashutosh P Bhatt, Mumbai

DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Ashutosh P Bhatt, Mumbai

Chains Corner Jewellery (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 22, Mumbai

Rochem Separation Systems (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Rochem Separation Systems (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Karamjit Singh Dhanjal, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

Jayant B Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC13, Mumbai

A.C.I.T. Cent.Cir.13, Mumbai vs. Jayant B. Patel(HUF), Mumbai

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-07 vs. M/S Omni Info World Pvt. Ltd

Sri. T. Thimmegowda vs. ITO, Bangalore

Spl Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rama Krishna Jeweller (India), New Delhi

M/S. Meerut Agro Chemical Industries Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

Rheema Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

M/S Roger Enterpriese P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Spl Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Kanchenjunga Advertising Pvt Ltd

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd