Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT

123 ITR 457Supreme Court of India1980#452 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 366,470 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

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi, Gumanpura vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…sclosed income once surrendered and got taxed, the benefit of the availability (telescoping) of the same towards the other outgoing/investments/expenditure etc. must be allowed as was held long back in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) (DPB 22-25) followed by Rajasthan High Court in the case of ITO v. Tyaryamal Balchand [1987] 32 Taxman 64 (Raj.) (DPB 26-30), more particularly in absence of any evidence of utilization of such income elsewhere. 9.2 AO acted as per decisions: Since this is the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and followed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court…

Shri. Kushal Virendra Tandon, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

ITA 7572/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Kushal Virendra Tandon Acit -16(1) 802, Rustomjee Enclave, Vs. Room No. 439, 4Th Floor, Upper Juhu, Behind Dn Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Police Station, Andheri West, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Adxpt7623G (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 68

…nviction that amounts utilised or investments made by a person during a year can find its roots in the secret accumulated funds of the past is supported by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC). In its aforesaid order, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that whether the cash credit can be reasonably attributed to a pre-existing fund of concealed profits or they are reasonably explained by reference to the concealed income earned in that very year is a matter of consideration in light of the facts of each case. Be that as it…

Chandra Sahu, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(4), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 76/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

…Raitani - [2011] 45 SOT 231 - Hon'ble Gauhati Bench of ITAT (TM) - 07.10.2010 v.Taj Borewells - [2007] 291 ITR 232 - Hon'ble Madras High Court - dated 02.04.2007 - followed the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ananthram Veerasinghaiah & Co [1980] 123 ITR 457 dated 15.04.1981. vi. Hon'ble Delhi Bench (SMC) of ITAT in the case of Amitabh Bansal- [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 - order pronounced on 11.02.2019- Para 6.2 - "From above provisions it is crystal clear that mere bank 6 Smt. Chandra Sahu ITA No.75 & 76/Ind/2019 statement which is issued by bank to its client/account holder can't be elevated to st…

Chandra Sahu, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(4), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 75/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

…Raitani - [2011] 45 SOT 231 - Hon'ble Gauhati Bench of ITAT (TM) - 07.10.2010 v.Taj Borewells - [2007] 291 ITR 232 - Hon'ble Madras High Court - dated 02.04.2007 - followed the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ananthram Veerasinghaiah & Co [1980] 123 ITR 457 dated 15.04.1981. vi. Hon'ble Delhi Bench (SMC) of ITAT in the case of Amitabh Bansal- [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 - order pronounced on 11.02.2019- Para 6.2 - "From above provisions it is crystal clear that mere bank 6 Smt. Chandra Sahu ITA No.75 & 76/Ind/2019 statement which is issued by bank to its client/account holder can't be elevated to st…

M/S. Intercontinental Hotels Group India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2188/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139(4)Section 195Section 271Section 40

…um proceedings as Penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from such proceedings and therefore imposition of penalty is not mandatory/ automatic. Case laws relied upon by the assessee in this regard are as under:- a) Ananthram Veersinghaiah & Co. [1980] (123 ITR 457 (Supreme Court) b) CIT vs. Chetan Dass Lachhman Dass (1995)214 1TR 726 (Delhi HC) c) CIT vs JK Synthetics Ltd (1996)219 ITR 267 (Delhi HC) d) CIT vs Dharmachand L. Shah (1993)204 ITR 462 (Bombay HC) 11 e) CIT vs Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (Allahabad HC) IV) Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) cannot be a reason to impose penalty under s…

R.S. Tradelink Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Surat

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

ITA 2130/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra - CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…le unless it is shown that there is a conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Reference in this regard can be usefully made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC), wherein it was held as follows: “It is now settled law that an order imposing a penalty is the result of quasi- criminal proceeding and that the burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the disputed amount represents income and that the assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or has deliberately furnished inaccu…

Illies Engineering India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 109/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…indankutty Menon (1989) 178 ITR 509, 515 (Ker) ; Hotel & Allied Trades (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 619, 646 (Ker). We may refer here to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam 16 Illies Engg. Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457, 462 (SC), wherein it is held that the findings recorded in assessment order constitute good evidence in the penalty proceedings but those findings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. A reading of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696, 701 (SC) shows that while assessment pro…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…n the bank account. Whether the assessee is entitled to the telescoping benefit of the surrendered income with the cash deposited in the bank account needs to be analysed in light of following judicial pronouncements :- a. In Veerasinhaiah & co vs CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC), the Supreme court has clearly held that Secret profit/ Undisclosed income of an Appellant earned may constitute a fund, even thouqh concealed from which the Appellant may draw subsequently... In CIT V.s. K.S.M. Guruswamy Nadar & Sons (1984) 149 ITR b. 127 (Madras) it was held that "In this case, in addition to the Bogus cash credit there i…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…n the bank account. Whether the assessee is entitled to the telescoping benefit of the surrendered income with the cash deposited in the bank account needs to be analysed in light of following judicial pronouncements :- a. In Veerasinhaiah & co vs CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC), the Supreme court has clearly held that Secret profit/ Undisclosed income of an Appellant earned may constitute a fund, even thouqh concealed from which the Appellant may draw subsequently... In CIT V.s. K.S.M. Guruswamy Nadar & Sons (1984) 149 ITR b. 127 (Madras) it was held that "In this case, in addition to the Bogus cash credit there i…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…the AO. Copies of FIR filed against Dr. Bhandari was also filed (page 556-557 of paper book) . xxi. The JCIT vide its order dated 24/3/2015 directed the AO to grant set-off of undisclosed receipts from hundli loans as the same is mandated by Supreme Court in 123 ITR 457(SC) and other decisions. In respect of deduction u/s 35AC the JCIT directed the AO to allow the deduction if the assessee follows the conditions as provided in the Income-tax Act. (page 17 to 20 of the Assessment Order) xxii. The AO passed the order u/s 143(3) following the directions of JCIT and the documents on record and allowed set-off of Rs…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…n the bank account. Whether the assessee is entitled to the telescoping benefit of the surrendered income with the cash deposited in the bank account needs to be analysed in light of following judicial pronouncements :- a. In Veerasinhaiah & co vs CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC), the Supreme court has clearly held that Secret profit/ Undisclosed income of an Appellant earned may constitute a fund, even thouqh concealed from which the Appellant may draw subsequently... In CIT V.s. K.S.M. Guruswamy Nadar & Sons (1984) 149 ITR b. 127 (Madras) it was held that "In this case, in addition to the Bogus cash credit there i…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

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

ITA 1470/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…be telescoped with another addition as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nellaippan reported in 66 ITR 722, CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad reported in 72 ITR 194 and Anantharaman Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT reported in 123 ITR 457. In the present case, the Revenue had not discharged the onus of proving that the money generated out of concealed income was not available with the assessee for the purpose of making the investments subsequently. Therefore, keeping in view of the principles discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee should be given the bene…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

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

ITA 1469/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…be telescoped with another addition as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nellaippan reported in 66 ITR 722, CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad reported in 72 ITR 194 and Anantharaman Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT reported in 123 ITR 457. In the present case, the Revenue had not discharged the onus of proving that the money generated out of concealed income was not available with the assessee for the purpose of making the investments subsequently. Therefore, keeping in view of the principles discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee should be given the bene…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

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

ITA 1468/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…be telescoped with another addition as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Nellaippan reported in 66 ITR 722, CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad reported in 72 ITR 194 and Anantharaman Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT reported in 123 ITR 457. In the present case, the Revenue had not discharged the onus of proving that the money generated out of concealed income was not available with the assessee for the purpose of making the investments subsequently. Therefore, keeping in view of the principles discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee should be given the bene…

ITO Ward 3(3), Thane vs. Shri. Sanjeev Narayan Sarnaik, Thane

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 323/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Anthony T D’Souza, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…the imposition of penalty in a given case, because the considerations that arise in penalty proceedings are different from those that arise in assessment proceedings. As pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. 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. Shri Sanjiv Narayan Sarnaik 5 Whether a penalty can be imposed in a given case, the entirety of the circumstances must be taken into account.…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7036/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…ly in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The view taken in the case of Anwar AI has been followed in Khoday Eswarsa and Sons, 83 ITR 369 (SC) in Anantharam Veerasighaiah & Co., 123 ITR 457 (SC) in T. Ashok Pai, 292 ITR 11 (SC) and in Dilip N. Shroff. 291 ITR 519. It is to be noted that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) as considered by the Apex Court in the case Anwar Ali (supra) were identical to the provisions under the old Act of 1922. in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills, 168 ITR 705 (SC), it was held that penalt…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7035/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…ly in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The view taken in the case of Anwar AI has been followed in Khoday Eswarsa and Sons, 83 ITR 369 (SC) in Anantharam Veerasighaiah & Co., 123 ITR 457 (SC) in T. Ashok Pai, 292 ITR 11 (SC) and in Dilip N. Shroff. 291 ITR 519. It is to be noted that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) as considered by the Apex Court in the case Anwar Ali (supra) were identical to the provisions under the old Act of 1922. in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills, 168 ITR 705 (SC), it was held that penalt…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7034/MUM/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…ly in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The view taken in the case of Anwar AI has been followed in Khoday Eswarsa and Sons, 83 ITR 369 (SC) in Anantharam Veerasighaiah & Co., 123 ITR 457 (SC) in T. Ashok Pai, 292 ITR 11 (SC) and in Dilip N. Shroff. 291 ITR 519. It is to be noted that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) as considered by the Apex Court in the case Anwar Ali (supra) were identical to the provisions under the old Act of 1922. in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills, 168 ITR 705 (SC), it was held that penalt…

Sanjeeb Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata

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

ITA 946/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 24

…osed income from transportation business, this amount of Rs.14,50,000/-has to be telescoped with the overall declaration of Rs.45 lacs and he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co Vs. CIT reported in 123 ITR 457 which was followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court & Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi reported in 151 ITR 353 and CIT Vs. Prem Chand Jain reported in 189 ITR 320 respectively wherein it was held as follows: “8. There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of…

ACIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata vs. Vivek Rohatgi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1437/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…coping such estimated profit against the addition, if any, upheld on account of unexplained asset i.e. jewellery. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co Vs. CIT reported in 123 ITR 457, which was followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court & Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi reported in 151 ITR 353 and CIT Vs. Prem Chand Jain reported in 189 ITR 320 respectively. 14. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the documents, which were found and seized in the course of search and…