Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax Income

30 ITR 593High Court1956#9159 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 131Section 142(2A)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 264asection 114(e)section 90asanction under section 151substantive assessmentsection 114protective assessmentsection 153a(1)(b)section 144asection 151(2)section 158bgsection 142(2a)

Judgments citing Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…essee. The onus of proving this would be on the department. Otherwise, it would amount to the departmentt saying, "heads I win, tails you lose". The decision of the Andhra High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax Income tax [1956] 30 ITR 593 is a case in point. In that case the assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company styled the he Nellore Bus Transport Co. Ltd. According to the books of the company its profits for its entire period of existence, that is to say, for the years of account ending with 31st December, 1946, 31st December, 1947, 31st December, 1948, May, 1949…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…sessee. The onus of proving this would be on the department. Otherwise, it would amount to the departmentt saying, "heads I win, tails you lose". The decision of the Andhra High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax Income tax [1956] 30 ITR 593 is a case in point. In that case the assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company styled the he Nellore Bus Transport Co. Ltd. According to the books of the company its profits for its entire period of existence, that is to say, for the years of account ending with 31st December, 1946, 31st December, 1947, 31st December, 1948, May, 1949…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…essee. The onus of proving this would be on the department. Otherwise, it would amount to the departmentt saying, "heads I win, tails you lose". The decision of the Andhra High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax Income tax [1956] 30 ITR 593 is a case in point. In that case the assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company styled the he Nellore Bus Transport Co. Ltd. According to the books of the company its profits for its entire period of existence, that is to say, for the years of account ending with 31st December, 1946, 31st December, 1947, 31st December, 1948, May, 1949…

PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…essee. The onus of proving this would be on the department. Otherwise, it would amount to the departmentt saying, "heads I win, tails you lose". The decision of the Andhra High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax Income tax [1956] 30 ITR 593 is a case in point. In that case the assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company styled the he Nellore Bus Transport Co. Ltd. According to the books of the company its profits for its entire period of existence, that is to say, for the years of account ending with 31st December, 1946, 31st December, 1947, 31st December, 1948, May, 1949…

PERIASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…essee. The onus of proving this would be on the department. Otherwise, it would amount to the departmentt saying, "heads I win, tails you lose". The decision of the Andhra High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax Income tax [1956] 30 ITR 593 is a case in point. In that case the assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company styled the he Nellore Bus Transport Co. Ltd. According to the books of the company its profits for its entire period of existence, that is to say, for the years of account ending with 31st December, 1946, 31st December, 1947, 31st December, 1948, May, 1949…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the all the appeals filed by the assessee is is partly allowed

ITA 1396/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…decision of the Andhra High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. The decision of the Andhra High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. The decision of the Andhra High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax [1956] 30 ITR 593 is a case in point. In tax [1956] 30 ITR 593 is a case in point. In that case the assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company that case the assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company that case the assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company styled the Nellore Bus Transport Co. Ltd. According to the books of the…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…e decided based on circumstances in each case. 16. The benefit of telescoping was also considered by the Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 187 : (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) approving Lagadapati Sunna Ramaiah vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 593 (AP) observed that: "There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in an earlier assessment year may constitute a fund, even though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently for meeting expenditure or introducing amounts in his account books. But it is quite another t…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1514/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…e decided based on circumstances in each case. 16. The benefit of telescoping was also considered by the Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 187 : (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) approving Lagadapati Sunna Ramaiah vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 593 (AP) observed that: "There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in an earlier assessment year may constitute a fund, even though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently for meeting expenditure or introducing amounts in his account books. But it is quite another t…

MRS. STELLA SURESH SRIVASTAVA,MYSURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MYSORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234Section 69

…though commonly described as 'intangible, is as much a part of his real income as that disclosed by his account books. It has the same concrete existence. It could be available to the assessee as the book profits could be. In Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah vs. CIT (30 ITR 593), the Andhra Pradesh High Court adverted to this aspect of secret profits and their actual availability for application by the assessee. That view was affirmed by the Madras High Court in S.Kuppuswamy Mudaliar vs. CIT (51 ITR 757). 7.3 The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gha Lime Stone & Co. (144 ITR 140) held that i…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…decided based on circumstances in each case. 16. The benefit of telescoping was also considered by the Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 187 : (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) approving Lagadapati Sunna Ramaiah vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 593 (AP) observed that: "There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in an earlier assessment year may constitute a fund, even though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently for meeting expenditure or introducing amounts in his account books. But it is quite another…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…decided based on circumstances in each case. 16. The benefit of telescoping was also considered by the Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 187 : (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) approving Lagadapati Sunna Ramaiah vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 593 (AP) observed that: "There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in an earlier assessment year may constitute a fund, even though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently for meeting expenditure or introducing amounts in his account books. But it is quite another…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SONAL CONSTRUCTIONS

In the result, the substantial question of law framed in ITA No

ITA/1132/2007HC Delhi04 Oct 2012
Section 132Section 158

…the peak amount, even as per the assessment order, at `1,73,34,387/- and thus the excess addition amounted to `1,95,92,700/-. He referred to the well settled proposition laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 593 and by the Madras High Court in S. Kupuswami Mudaliar v. CIT, (1964) 51 ITR 757 as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. S. Nelliappan, (1967) 66 ITR 722 and held that if there was a connection between the profits withheld from the books and the amounts entered as cash credits, it is possible to hold that the former constituted the…