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 CIT(A) decisions on unexplained loans & penalties under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Manohar Cold Storage & General Mills (P.) Ltd.</h3> Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Manohar Cold Storage & General Mills (P.) Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of additions on account of unexplained loans.2. Cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Additions on Account of Unexplained Loans:The Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 1992-93 involved two main additions: Rs. 4,88,000 (Rs. 3,70,000 + Rs. 1,18,000) related to loans from M/s. Nath Resources Co. and M/s. Om Lessors and Financiers, and Rs. 1,30,000 related to a loan from Smt. Maya Rani. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made these additions due to the assessee's failure to satisfactorily explain the loans during the assessment proceedings. The AO observed that no books of account for the firms were produced, and the statement of Dr. P.N. Singhal did not inspire confidence.The CIT(A) deleted these additions, noting that the loans were taken through banking channels, and the creditors were income-tax assessees with sufficient funds in their bank accounts. The CIT(A) also pointed out that the AO did not rebut the evidence provided by the assessee, including affidavits, confirmatory letters, and bank statements.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the AO could have verified the facts from the income-tax records but failed to do so. The Tribunal also highlighted that documentary evidence should be preferred over oral evidence and that the assessee's explanation should not be rejected on mere surmises.2. Cancellation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act:For the assessment year 1992-93, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the deletion of the additions for cash credits. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, aligning with its decision on the quantum appeal.For the assessment year 1993-94, the CIT(A) deleted an addition of Rs. 60,000 related to an unexplained loan from M/s. Nath Resources Co., relying on the order for the previous year. The Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.Similarly, for the assessment year 1993-94, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty under section 271(1)(c) following the deletion of the addition for cash credits. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, consistent with its decision on the quantum appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders that deleted the additions on account of unexplained loans and cancelled the penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the need for the AO to bring substantial material on record to reject the assessee's claims.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found