AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v. CIT

86 ITR 724High Court1972#16180 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 269SS

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(ia)percentage completion methodsection 142(2a)section 269sssection 271dsection 269section 17block periodsection 40a(3)on-moneysection 40asection 40(a)(ia)

Judgments citing AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3662/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…1) 334 ITR 0383 (In the Culcutta High Court )/ Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Prem Chand Jain (1991) 189 ITR 0320 (in the Punjab and Haryana High Court/ AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v/s. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC)/ CIT v/s. Ram Sanchi Gian Chand ( 1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H). 25. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the A.O. before making addition on account of unaccounted income on the basis of seized ledgers has treated such impugned receipts as "On money", "Extrapolated Sales", "Suppressed Receipts/Sales", "Unaccounted receipts/Sales" without realizing the fact that under the statute all these…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3661/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…1) 334 ITR 0383 (In the Culcutta High Court )/ Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Prem Chand Jain (1991) 189 ITR 0320 (in the Punjab and Haryana High Court/ AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v/s. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC)/ CIT v/s. Ram Sanchi Gian Chand ( 1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H). 25. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the A.O. before making addition on account of unaccounted income on the basis of seized ledgers has treated such impugned receipts as "On money", "Extrapolated Sales", "Suppressed Receipts/Sales", "Unaccounted receipts/Sales" without realizing the fact that under the statute all these…

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2819/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…1) 334 ITR 0383 (In the Culcutta High Court )/ Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Prem Chand Jain (1991) 189 ITR 0320 (in the Punjab and Haryana High Court/ AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v/s. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC)/ CIT v/s. Ram Sanchi Gian Chand ( 1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H). 25. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the A.O. before making addition on account of unaccounted income on the basis of seized ledgers has treated such impugned receipts as "On money", "Extrapolated Sales", "Suppressed Receipts/Sales", "Unaccounted receipts/Sales" without realizing the fact that under the statute all these…

Mahugun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2818/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…1) 334 ITR 0383 (In the Culcutta High Court )/ Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Prem Chand Jain (1991) 189 ITR 0320 (in the Punjab and Haryana High Court/ AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v/s. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC)/ CIT v/s. Ram Sanchi Gian Chand ( 1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H). 25. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the A.O. before making addition on account of unaccounted income on the basis of seized ledgers has treated such impugned receipts as "On money", "Extrapolated Sales", "Suppressed Receipts/Sales", "Unaccounted receipts/Sales" without realizing the fact that under the statute all these…

Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle, Kurukshetra

ITA 296/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

…Barat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi.) • M/s Areva T&D India Ltd Vs. CIT, Tax Case Appeal No. 673 of 2018(Mad.) • Pappayammai Vs. Palanisamy Sellammal (Died) and Ors. [2005] AIR 2005 Mad 431 (Mad.) • CIT Vs. Ram Sanehi Gian Chand [1972] 86 ITR 724 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Mohan Engineering Co. [1985] 151 ITR 571 (Pat.) 7. It was further submitted that in respect of an issue for which all facts are on record, an assessee can raise new plea which was not raised before any of the lower authorities and in support, reliance was placed on following decisions: • CIT Vs. S.Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC…

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

…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 undisclosed sources even though he had added the amount of Rs.18,117 in addition to the profits shown by the assesses in its account bo…

AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v. CIT (86 ITR 724) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax