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

Issues it is cited on

section 270(a)record date section 270a(8)section 270a(6)section 114 section 270a(9)section 271(l)(c)section 142(2a)section 269ss dumb documents penalty u/s 270a section 245

Judgments citing Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT

Anwarali B. Karachiwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1445/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Shri Anwarali B. Karachiwala, Ito-24(1)(2) A-202, Siddhi Chs, Erstwhile Ito-17(1)(3) बिधम/ Kalyan Complex, Yari Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai- 400061 Mumbai- 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…the assessee, therefore, part of the said amount can safely be held to be available with the assessee. We find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC). We thus, in all fairness conclude that out of the aggregate cash withdrawal of Rs. 4,79,000/- made by the assessee during the period 21.07.2004 to 03.03.2005, an amount of Rs. 2,39,500/- (i.e 50% of Rs. 4,79,000/-) could safely be held to be available with him. We have further deliberated on the bank statement filed by the assessee with the…

Anita Surendra Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3102/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun BansalFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2005-06) Smt. Anita Surendra Agarwal Vs. ITO-13(1)(2), Mumbai C/o. M/s. Audler Fastners, (Respondent) 110, Narayan Dhuru Street, Mumbai 400 003. PAN : AAMPA8159J (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Tarun Bansal Respondent by : Shri Saurabh Deshpande Date of Hearing : 06/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08/06/2018 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-24, Mumbai dated 10.02.2014 pertaining to t…

Shiva Mint Industries, Jammu vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 650/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)

Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IB. Finally, it was submitted that in ITA No.649 & 650/Asr/2016 4 (A.Y.2007-08 & 2009-10) M/s Shiva Mint Industries vs. DCIT view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. CIT, 123 ITR 457(SC), the assessment proceedings and penalty proceeding are all together different and merely because amount was disallowed does not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that order impugned herein are based on logical reasoning and does not suffer…

M/S Shiva Mint Industries, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 649/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)

Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

K.M. Dastur Reinsurance Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 5814/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav &

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…sed and returned income, and that the said difference cannot be conclusive for levy of penalty because the assessment and the penalty proceedings are independent, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs CIT, 123 ITR 457 (SC). Notably, the findings in the assessment proceedings may be relevant, but the same, by itself, cannot be conclusive for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) were obligated to demonstrate as to how the impugned addition to the returned income constitutes concealment o…

K. M. Dastur Reinsurance Brokers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 5406/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav &

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Xylon Electrotechnic Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1582/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-3(3)(2) M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Room No. 609, 6Th Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, Aayakar A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 285/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Dcit-3(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Vs. A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V. Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 41(1)

…he same as personal expenditure of the Directors. Further, the AO has made a disallowance of Rs.20,06,198/- as cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC), wherein it has been held that the findings recorded in the assessment order constitute good evidence in the penalty proceedings but those findings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purposes of the penalty proceedings. Whether a penalty can be imposed in a given case, the entirety of the circumstances must be taken into account. All w…

S.S. Raj & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1570/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S S. Raj & Co. Ito-19(1)(4) Ashiana, 1St Floor, 87, Linking Piramal Chambers, Vs. Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400054. Pan No.Aaafs9789G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…lt in any foreseeable future. It is stated by him that what happened in quantum assessment is a different matter but which should not influence the penalty proceedings. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC). S. Raj Co. Referring to the decision in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC), it is submitted by him that if income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book keeping, an entry is made about a “hypothetical income”, which does not materialise. Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Relian…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6882/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena

Section 115JSection 132(4)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…ot question is whether such deeming effect is conclusive for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act or not? It is quite well understood, and which has been emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT, 123 ITR 457 (SC) that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent and the findings in the assessment order would not be conclusive for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1) of the 22 M/s. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Act though the same may be one of the relevant considerations. To put it differently, it is to be noted that the manner and t…

DCIT-Central Circle-Xxviii, Kolkata vs. Shri Chandra Prakash Banthia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/KOL/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Upadhyay, Advocate, ld.AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…erving that there was no need to make further addition on account of unexplained peak cash balance by telescoping such income. The CIT-A 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. Relevant portion of CIT-A order is reproduced herein below:- “11. I also find merit and substance in the alternate submission o…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…t undisclosed cash, investment, loans and advances, expenses etc. In support of the above proposition, the reliance is placed upon the following judgments: (a) S. Kuppuswami Mudaliar VS. C.I.T. [51 ITR 757 (MAD)] (b)Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. VS.C.I.T.[123 ITR 457 (SC)] © C.I.T. VS. Prem Chand Jain [189 ITR 320 (P&H)] In view of the decisions in CIT v. Ram Sanehi Gian Chand [1972] 86 ITR 724 and Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457C. (d) C.I.T. VS. Tyaryamal Balchand 165 ITR 453 (Raj.) In the present case, the ITO was within his right to tax the amount of Rs.16,950 as income from undi…

Kss Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dciit CC 38, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 1287/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: S/Shri R.P.Meena/Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…he Act are independent proceedings and the findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be conclusive to test the efficacy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT, 123 ITR 457 (SC) the penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are independent proceedings and though the findings in the assessment proceedings may be relevant, but they are not conclusive to determine the efficacy of the penalty leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in the penalty proceedings it is open the assessee to demonstrate th…

K Sera Productions Ltd( Formerly Known As Garnet Paper Mills Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 5055/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: S/Shri R.P.Meena/Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4391/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…w enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Anwar Ali reported in 76 ITR 696 (S.C.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs Khoday Eswarsa & Sons (1972) 83 ITR 369 (S.C.), Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs C.I.T. reported in 123 ITR 457 (SC). In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bacardi Martini India Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 585 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that merely because there was a difference of opinion between the assessee and the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that the assessee had the intention to conceal his income. 6 Assessment year 2008…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajneesh Nagar, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2667/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle-25, New Vs. Rajneesh Nagar, A-20, Bada Delhi Mohalla, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi Pan : Aafpn1426N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 12.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2017 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…nd merit in the claim of the assessee that undisclosed income of Rs. 50 lacs warrants telescoping, which explains the source of cash and jewellery found as a result of search. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Versus CIT 123 ITR 457 has approved the concept of telescoping. The Revenue has not been able to prove that undisclosed has been invested in investment other than cash and jewellery. Therefore, having regard to the settled proposition of law and 9 AY: 2011-12 in absence of any material placed on record by the Learned CIT(DR) to rebut the factual findings recorded by t…

Shri Cdr, Udai Singh, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 791/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Cdr Udaisingh Bhopal Pan – Aglps – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

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

…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…

Shri Yogesh Hotwani, Mandsaur vs. The DCIT (Central), Indore

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

ITA 680/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

…ced on the decision of jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Dharamdas Agarwal [1983] 144 ITR 143 (MP) where in following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been held as under:- "In Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980J 123 ITR 457(SC), it was held that 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. In the instant case, the Tribunal had pointed out I.T.(SS)A.Nos. 91 – 94 &…

The ACIT-Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Yogesh Kumar Hotwani, Mandsaur

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

ITA 674/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Sheela Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4007/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. RA Bansal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…contention reiterated the grounds of appeal. He 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. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the present case is not case of concealment of Income. He further stated that merely because an addition has not been contested, it cannot be presumed that the addition represents concealed income and placed the reliance of the decision fo the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sir Shadilal S…

Ashutosh P. Bhatt, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-55, Mumbai

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

ITA 1526/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…