Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>High Court upholds Tribunal's tax decision, except for minor adjustment</h1> <h3>Motilal Bawalal Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City I</h3> The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings, upholding the taxation of Rs. 84,600 as income for the accounting year 1943-44, except for Rs. 300. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Justification of the Tribunal's finding on the unexplained source of Rs. 84,600.2. Appropriateness of taxing the amount as income of the accounting year 1943-44.3. Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide all issues raised.4. Tribunal's jurisdiction to enhance the assessment.5. Application of mind by the Tribunal in determining the relevant assessment year.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of the Tribunal's Finding on the Unexplained Source of Rs. 84,600:The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 84,600. The assessee did not advance any argument on this part of the question before the High Court. Consequently, the High Court did not address this issue further, focusing instead on the appropriateness of the assessment year.2. Appropriateness of Taxing the Amount as Income of the Accounting Year 1943-44:The Tribunal observed that the sum of Rs. 84,600 should be taxed as income of the accounting year 1943-44, except for Rs. 300. The High Court upheld this observation, noting that the assessee had indeed raised a contention before the Tribunal that the appropriate assessment year was 1944-45, not 1945-46. The Tribunal was justified in making this determination as it was necessary to resolve the issues raised by the assessee.3. Tribunal's Jurisdiction to Decide All Issues Raised:The High Court confirmed that the Tribunal was justified in deciding all issues arising in the case, even if one issue was sufficient to dispose of the case. Sub-section (4) of section 33 of the Income-tax Act grants the Tribunal wide powers to pass orders on the appeal as it deems fit, provided both parties are given an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal's decision to address all contentions, including the appropriate assessment year, was within its jurisdiction.4. Tribunal's Jurisdiction to Enhance the Assessment:The High Court rejected the contention that the Tribunal's order amounted to an enhancement of the assessment for the year 1944-45. The Tribunal's observations did not directly enhance the assessment but could potentially lead to reopening the assessment for 1944-45. This potential outcome was deemed to be in the realm of conjecture, not a direct effect of the Tribunal's order.5. Application of Mind by the Tribunal in Determining the Relevant Assessment Year:The High Court found that the Tribunal had applied its mind in determining that the relevant assessment year for the Rs. 84,600 was 1944-45. The Tribunal affirmed the finding of the income-tax authorities that the amount represented income from an undisclosed source. The financial year is considered the previous year for income from undisclosed sources when the source is other than the regular business of the assessee, as established in *Commissioner of Income-tax v. Meghu Sao Jhandhu Sao*.Additional Observations:The High Court noted that any contention regarding the Tribunal's observations being obiter and not a finding within the meaning of the second proviso to sub-section (3) to section 34 could be relevant if and when reassessment proceedings are initiated for the assessment year 1944-45. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on this matter to avoid potential prejudice.Conclusion:The High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, confirming the Tribunal's justification in its findings and observations. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the department, with no separate costs in the notice of motion.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found