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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2013 (2) TMI 778 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        Court upholds Income Tax Settlement Commission's order adding Rs. 30 lakhs to income. Decision reasonable based on evidence. The court upheld the Income Tax Settlement Commission's order, dismissing the petition challenging the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs to the petitioner's ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court upholds Income Tax Settlement Commission's order adding Rs. 30 lakhs to income. Decision reasonable based on evidence.

                          The court upheld the Income Tax Settlement Commission's order, dismissing the petition challenging the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs to the petitioner's income. The court found the Commission's decision reasonable, based on discrepancies in on-money receipts and lack of full disclosure, with no arbitrary exercise of power or violation of natural justice principles. The court emphasized the finality of the Commission's orders and denied judicial review, concluding that the petitioner's arguments did not establish serious prejudice or breach of provisions.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Legality of the Income Tax Settlement Commission's order dated 24th April 2003.
                          2. Alleged arbitrary addition of Rs. 30 lakhs to the petitioner's income.
                          3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice by the Settlement Commission.
                          4. Scope of judicial review of the Settlement Commission's order.

                          Summary:

                          Legality of the Income Tax Settlement Commission's Order:
                          The petitioner challenged the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Settlement Commission) dated 24th April 2003 u/s 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the order and restore the matter for a fresh decision. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal and contrary to law.

                          Alleged Arbitrary Addition of Rs. 30 Lakhs:
                          The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in project consultancy and real estate coordination, was subjected to search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner filed an application u/s 245D [1] of the Act, offering additional income of Rs. 6,30,325 for settlement. The Settlement Commission, however, determined the undisclosed income at Rs. 1,06,30,325, adding Rs. 30 lakhs on an estimate basis for AYs 1994-95 and 1995-96. The petitioner contended that this addition was arbitrary and lacked a rational basis.

                          Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
                          The petitioner argued that the Settlement Commission acted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper opportunity to address the on-money receipts issue. The petitioner claimed that the method adopted for the additional estimate was irrational and perverse.

                          Scope of Judicial Review of the Settlement Commission's Order:
                          The court examined the scope of judicial review of the Settlement Commission's orders, referencing several precedents. It was noted that the Commission's decisions could be reviewed only if they were contrary to the provisions of the Act or if there was bias, fraud, or malice. The court emphasized that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission are distinct from regular assessment proceedings and that the Commission's orders carry a certain finality.

                          Court's Findings:
                          The court found that the Settlement Commission had provided cogent reasons for the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs, based on discrepancies in the on-money receipts and the lack of full and true disclosure by the petitioner. The court noted that the Commission had acted within its powers and had given sufficient opportunity for hearing. The court concluded that there was no arbitrary exercise of power or violation of natural justice principles warranting interference.

                          Conclusion:
                          The petition was dismissed, with the court upholding the Settlement Commission's order and finding no grounds for judicial review. The court emphasized that the Settlement Commission's decision-making process was unimpeachable and that the petitioner's contentions did not demonstrate any serious prejudice or breach of provisions.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found