CIT v. Anupam Udyog

142 ITR 133High Court1983#13404 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also reported as

15 Taxmann 259

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 10(23FB)Section 142(1)Section 270ASection 46A

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsection 132(4a)section 132aunexplained cash creditcross objectionunexplained moneygenuineness of the transactionsection 131undisclosed incomescrutiny assessmentsection 69asection 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Anupam Udyog

MKF INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7726/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmkf International Dcit Circle 17(1), 1903/1905, Aarus Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Wallace Fortuna, Shivdas Vs. Bkc, Mumbai – Chapsi Marg, Opp-Fazlani 400 051 School, Chinchbunder Ho, Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No. Abhfm5244N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah A/W Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 68

…ns made by the partners as income. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that source of income for the partners was not explained. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in CIT v. Anupam Udyog [1983] 142 ITR 133/15 Taxman 259. The Tribunal rested its conclusions upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 and that of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706. 8. Section 68 of the Act no doubt directs that if an assessee fails to explain the nature and source of credit entered in…

SPA CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1132/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1132/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Spa Constructions Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Adffs5436E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Spa Constructions (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 14.06.2025 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…ns made by the partners as income. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that source of income for the partners was not explained. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in CIT v. Anupam Udyog [1983] 142 ITR 133/15 Taxman 259. The Tribunal rested its conclusions upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 and that of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706. 8. Section 68 of the Act no doubt directs that if an assessee fails to explain the nature and source of credit entered in…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. SATTY AND ASSOCIATES,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.162 & 163/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19) Satty & Associates Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.236/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S Rama Rao, Ar (Appeared Through Virtual Mode)& Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…ns made by the partners as income. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that source of income for the partners was not explained. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in CIT v. Anupam Udyog [1983] 142 ITR 133/15 Taxman 259. The Tribunal rested its conclusions upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 and that of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706. 8. Section 68 of the Act no doubt directs that if an assessee fails to explain the nature and source of credit entered in…

SATTY AND ASSOCIATES,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.162 & 163/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19) Satty & Associates Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.236/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S Rama Rao, Ar (Appeared Through Virtual Mode)& Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…ns made by the partners as income. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that source of income for the partners was not explained. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in CIT v. Anupam Udyog [1983] 142 ITR 133/15 Taxman 259. The Tribunal rested its conclusions upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 and that of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706. 8. Section 68 of the Act no doubt directs that if an assessee fails to explain the nature and source of credit entered in…

SATTY AND ASSOCIATES ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.162 & 163/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19) Satty & Associates Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.236/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S Rama Rao, Ar (Appeared Through Virtual Mode)& Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…ns made by the partners as income. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that source of income for the partners was not explained. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in CIT v. Anupam Udyog [1983] 142 ITR 133/15 Taxman 259. The Tribunal rested its conclusions upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 and that of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706. 8. Section 68 of the Act no doubt directs that if an assessee fails to explain the nature and source of credit entered in…

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, BMC Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAKFT 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARs Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar date…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR vs. DURGA GRANITES, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1706/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2014-15 Acit, Vs. Durga Granites, Circle-1, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aagfd 8247 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By Sri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 Order

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT, Vs. Durga Granites, Circle-1, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. PAN: AAGFD 8247 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sri A. Srinivas Revenue by Sri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 02/12/2021 Date of pronouncement: 31/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0346/2016-17, dated 30/06/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 2…

ACIT vs. M/S COASTAL ROAWAYS,

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ence to indicate that the cash credits represents the firm's profits and the firm is not further required to explain the source of deposit in the hands of the partners. It was so held in CIT vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance 141 ITR 706 (All) and CIT vs. Anupam Udyog 142 ITR 133 (Pat). In CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 161 CTR (MP) 444 also it was held that once the firm has satisfactorily explained that the credit entries in the name of its partners represent the amount invested by them the burden of proof stood discharged and the amount cannot be treated as income of the firm under s. 68. In the light of the legal…