Income Tax v. M/s SAS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.\n335

19 ITR 259High Court#23299 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 115jctax collected at sourcesurrender of incomedeletion of penaltysection 260afurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)advance taxprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 153a(1)reasoned order

Judgments citing Income Tax v. M/s SAS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.\n335

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…19 (Raj) Copy of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Suresh Chand Mittal 241 ITR 124 Copy of order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s SAS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 335 19 ITR 259 (Delhi) 186- 192 193- 194 195- 200 10. We have carefully heard both parties and examined the material available on record. At the outset, we note that the core controversy relates to whether disclosure of additional income during survey, which is thereafter duly offered to tax in the return filed initially u/s 139(1) itself (and thereafter even u/…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…r of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 193- Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Suresh Chand Mittal 241 ITR 124 194 14. Copy of order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 195- Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s SAS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 200 335 19 ITR 259 (Delhi) 10. We have carefully heard both parties and examined the material available on record. At the outset, we note that the core controversy relates to whether disclosure of additional income during survey, which is thereafter duly offered to tax in the return filed initially u/s 139(1) itself (and thereafter even u/s 153A), can by itself be…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…19 (Raj) Copy of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Suresh Chand Mittal 241 ITR 124 Copy of order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s SAS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 335 19 ITR 259 (Delhi) 186- 192 193- 194 195- 200 10. We have carefully heard both parties and examined the material available on record. At the outset, we note that the core controversy relates to whether disclosure of additional income during survey, which is thereafter duly offered to tax in the return filed initially u/s 139(1) itself (and thereafter even u/…

Income Tax v. M/s SAS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.\n335 (19 ITR 259) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax