CIT v. K.P. Abdullah

240 ITR 947High Court2001#23899 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. K.P. Abdullah

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

…] 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. K.P. Abdullah - [(2001) 240 ITR 947 (Madras)] 8. CIT v. Yamuna Digital Electronics (P.) Ltd.- [(1999) 238 ITR 717 (AP)] 9. CIT v. Jaya Stores - [(1999) 107 Тахтап 612 (Madras)] 10. CIT v. Ram Niwas - [(2008) 170 Тахxman 5 (Delhi)] 11. Bombay Engineering & Metal Works Pvt Ltd v. ITO. [1986] 24 ITJ 341 (Bom) 12. ACIT v. Bissheshwarlal Mannalal & Sons - [(2002) 80 ITD 69 (Calcutta Tri…

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

…) and therefore, the provisions of sec. 69D were not applicable in the case of the assessee. 10. We further find that Hon’blee Madras High Court had occasion to examine the issue relating to hundi vis-a-vis promissory note in the case of CIT vs K.P. Abdullah 240 ITR 947 (Mad) wherein the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue as under: “The assessee borrowed from four lenders the sums of Rs.10,500, Rs.12,400, Rs.7500 and Rs.7500. The repayments were not made by cheque but by cash. The Departmental authorities held that these amounts fell within the mischief of section 69D of the Income Tax Act,1961 and accordingl…

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

…) and therefore, the provisions of sec. 69D were not applicable in the case of the assessee. 10. We further find that Hon’blee Madras High Court had occasion to examine the issue relating to hundi vis-a-vis promissory note in the case of CIT vs K.P. Abdullah 240 ITR 947 (Mad) wherein the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue as under: “The assessee borrowed from four lenders the sums of Rs.10,500, Rs.12,400, Rs.7500 and Rs.7500. The repayments were not made by cheque but by cash. The Departmental authorities held that these amounts fell within the mischief of section 69D of the Income Tax Act,1961 and accordingl…

CIT v. K.P. Abdullah (240 ITR 947) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax