CIT v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd.

214 ITR 576High Court1995#15365 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd.

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

ITA 1339/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271DSection 69D

…e placed reliance on the following\njudgements:\n1. CIT v. Paranjothi Salt Co. - [(1995) 211 ITR 141 (Madras)]\n2. CIT v. Grahalakshmi & Co. [1999] 240 ITR 952 (Madras)]\nApproving [1982] 2 ITD 420 (Madras)]\n3. CIT v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. -[(1995) 214 ITR 576 (AP)]\n4. CIT v. Intraven Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd.- [(1995) 219 ITR 225\n(AP)]\n5. CIT v. Prithivi Fire Works Industries [(1999) 239 ITR 230\n(Madras)]\n6. CIT v. Madura Devakottai Transports (P.) Ltd.- [(1999) 238 ITR\n1003 (Madras)]\n7. CIT v. K.P. Abdullah - [(2001) 240 ITR 947 (Madras)]\n8. CIT v. Yamuna Digital Electronics (P.) Ltd.- [(1999…

ITO 2(3), INDORE vs. SHRI SUKHWANT SINGH BABBAR, INDORE

ITA 880/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 245D(4)Section 69D

…sis was not conclusive. ITA 879 and 880 of 2018 8 Sukhwant Singh Babbar Therefore, application of Section 69D was unjustified. Our view finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Dexan Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, 214 ITR 576 (AP) wherein the Hon'ble High Court set out the characteristics as under: 1) There are always three parties to such transaction. They are the drawer, the drawee and the payee. The drawer cannot himself also be the drawee. If the transaction is bilateral it is a very strong indication to show that it is not a hundi transaction. 2) A hundi is paya…

ITO 2(3), INDORE vs. SHRI SUKHWANT SINGH BABBAR, INDORE

ITA 879/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 245D(4)Section 69D

DY.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR.,, RAIPUR vs. SHRI SUMIT DAGA, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 224/BIL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri R. B. Doshi, Adv

Section 139(9)Section 144Section 2(23)Section 69Section 69D

…ird set of the alleged hundi contain name of the lender. Thus, it can be safely concluded that none of the seized material complies with the mandatory requirements of a legally enforceable hundi (promissory note). 11. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in 214 ITR 576 had the occasion to consider the meaning of hundi. The Hon’ble High Court after analyzing the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as Indian Stamp Act formulated the following broad features of hundi transaction.:- 1. There are always three parties to such a transaction. They are the drawer, the drawee and the payee. The drawer ca…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAM NIWAS

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 756 / 2007HC Delhi11 Jan 2008

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ['Cit(A)'], Who Conducted A Rather Detailed Examination Relating To The Law Explaining What Is A Hundi. The Cit(A) Relied Upon A Decision Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Dexan Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., (1995) 214 Itr 576 (Ap). The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Turn Relied Upon A Decision Of The Calcutta High Court In Harsuk Das V. Dhirendranath, Air 1941 Cal 498. Reference Was Also Made To A

Section 69D

…me Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'], who conducted a rather detailed examination relating to the law explaining what is a hundi. The CIT(A) relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., (1995) 214 ITR 576 (AP). The Andhra Pradesh High Court in turn relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Harsuk Das v. Dhirendranath, AIR 1941 Cal 498. Reference was also made to a ITA No. 756/2007 commentary on the Negotiable Instruments Act by Sr Khergamwalla, XV Edition, by Sri M.S. Parthasaradhi as well as to the 15th Edition of Bhashyam and Adiga…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S CAPITAL FLOUR MILLS P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/112/2006HC Delhi25 Jul 2007

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

Section 148Section 2(2)Section 260ASection 69D

…not placed before the Assessing Officer and that a photocopy of the hundi has no real evidentiary value, it relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., [1995] 214 ITR 576. In that decision, it has been noted that “hundi” is neither defined in the Act nor in the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, it finds a mention in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Section 2(2) thereof defines a bill of exchange which includes a hundi. 8. Thereafter, the High Court considered various commentaries and decisions and concluded t…