Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal affirms search authorization, undisclosed income treatment, and block assessment in tax case</h1> <h3>Mrs. Aanisa Batool Gilani Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi</h3> Mrs. Aanisa Batool Gilani Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi - [2008] 21 SOT 323 (DELHI) Issues Involved:1. Validity of the search authorization under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of the assessment order under section 158BC/BA.3. Adequacy of opportunities provided to the assessee.4. Treatment of bank account entries as income from undisclosed sources.5. Clubbing of income for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 with block assessment.6. Valuation of the flat purchased by the assessee.7. Addition based on a seized paper labeled as a 'bill'.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Search Authorization Under Section 132:The assessee contended that no valid search authorization existed on 9-6-2002, making the search and subsequent assessment illegal. The revenue clarified that the authorization was actually issued on 10-6-2002 by the Joint Director (Investigation). The Tribunal cited CBDT notifications empowering Joint Directors to issue search authorizations for consequential searches and upheld the validity of the search authorization, stating it was in conformity with the CBDT notification dated 11-10-1990.2. Validity of the Assessment Order Under Section 158BC/BA:The assessee argued that the assessment was invalid as no valid search was conducted. The Tribunal, however, found that the search was validly authorized and conducted, making the assessment under section 158BC/BA valid. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's reliance on case laws, distinguishing them based on the facts of the case.3. Adequacy of Opportunities Provided to the Assessee:This issue was not pressed by the assessee's representative and was thus rejected by the Tribunal as not pressed.4. Treatment of Bank Account Entries as Income from Undisclosed Sources:The assessee's explanation that the deposits were from personal savings, tuition income, and gifts was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's treatment of Rs. 3,66,600 as income from undisclosed sources, rejecting the CIT(A)'s partial relief of Rs. 77,600. The Tribunal emphasized that in block assessments, explanations must be supported by cogent evidence.5. Clubbing of Income for Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 with Block Assessment:The assessee argued that the income for these years was assessed twice. The Tribunal referred to section 158BA(3) and Explanation 'C' to section 158BA(2), concluding that the income for these years, not recorded in the books maintained in the normal course, was rightly included in the block assessment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in this regard.6. Valuation of the Flat Purchased by the Assessee:The Assessing Officer valued the flat at Rs. 13 lakhs based on the assessee's statement during the search, while the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's retraction and valued it at Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The Tribunal found the initial statement under section 132(4) to be voluntary and with evidentiary value, reversing the CIT(A)'s order and upholding the Assessing Officer's valuation of Rs. 13 lakhs. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the assessee's retraction and explanation of the source of investment.7. Addition Based on a Seized Paper Labeled as a 'Bill':The Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs. 1,10,750 mentioned in a seized document as unexplained expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, considering the document an estimate rather than a bill. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the document was merely an estimate and upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, reversing the CIT(A)'s order.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and allowed the revenue's appeal, upholding the validity of the search and assessment, the treatment of bank deposits as undisclosed income, the inclusion of income for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 in the block assessment, the valuation of the flat at Rs. 13 lakhs, and the addition based on the seized document.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found