CIT v. Grah Laxmi & Co.

240 ITR 952High Court1999#23900 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Grah Laxmi & Co.

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Aurangbad vs. Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1339/Pun/2024

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

…s basically not a Hundi within the meaning of section 69D but merely a collateral security. In this regard, assessee placed reliance on the following judgements: 1. CIT v. Paranjothi Salt Co. - [(1995) 211 ITR 141 (Madras)] 2. CIT v. Grahalakshmi & Co. [1999] 240 ITR 952 (Madras)] Approving [1982] 2 ITD 420 (Madras)] 3. CIT v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. -[(1995) 214 ITR 576 (AP)] 4. CIT v. Intraven Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd.- [(1995) 219 ITR 225 (AP)] 5. CIT v. Prithivi Fire Works Industries [(1999) 239 ITR 230 (Madras)] 6. CIT v. Madura Devakottai Transports (P.) Ltd.- [(1999) 238 ITR 1003 (Madras)] 7. CIT v…

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

…mise to pay. Section 69D of the Act was therefore clearly inapplicable and the Tribunal had reached the right conclusion in this regard. 11. We find that the similar issue came up before the Honorable Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Grah Laxmi & Co., 240 ITR 952 (Mad). The catch note of the said decision is as under: “INCOME—HUNDI—AMOUNT BORROWED OR REPAID OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE—DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF PERSON BORROWING OR REPAYING—CONSIDERING CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE HUNDI—INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, s.69D.” 12. We find that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) whil…

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

…mise to pay. Section 69D of the Act was therefore clearly inapplicable and the Tribunal had reached the right conclusion in this regard. 11. We find that the similar issue came up before the Honorable Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Grah Laxmi & Co., 240 ITR 952 (Mad). The catch note of the said decision is as under: “INCOME—HUNDI—AMOUNT BORROWED OR REPAID OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE—DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF PERSON BORROWING OR REPAYING—CONSIDERING CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE HUNDI—INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, s.69D.” 12. We find that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) whil…

CIT v. Grah Laxmi & Co. (240 ITR 952) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax