TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal on assessment reopening & undisclosed investment addition, citing lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>CIT Versus Arvind Khanna</h3> The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 148 and addition of undisclosed investment under Section 69 based on ... - Issues involved: Reopening of assessment u/s 148, addition of undisclosed investment u/s 69 based on DVO valuation, deletion of addition by CIT(A) and ITAT, reliance on case law.In the present case, the Assessee filed an income tax return for the assessment year 2006-07, disclosing the purchase of shares in a Company named M/s Trozen Developers Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the grounds that the value of a property acquired by the Assessee and his wife exceeded the consideration paid for the shares. The matter was referred to the DVO u/s 55, who determined the market value of the asset. The difference between this value and the consideration paid was added as undisclosed investment u/s 69.The CIT(A) deleted the addition, a decision upheld by the ITAT. The ITAT noted the absence of any evidence suggesting extra payment by the Assessee for the shares. Relying on judgments in the cases of CIT vs. Shankuntala Devi and CIT vs. Suraj Devi, the Tribunal concluded that no additions could be made without concrete evidence. Consequently, it was held that no question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
