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>Tribunal Overturns Tax Assessment, Emphasizes Evidence Rule</h1> <h3>P.H. Mohamamed Kunju & Brother, Kochi. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Kochi.</h3> The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals)-III, Kochi for the assessment year 2005-06 under sections 153A, 153C, ... - Issues involved: Appeal against order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-III, Kochi for assessment year 2005-06 u/s.153A r.w.s.153C & 143(3).Summary:Issue 1: Addition of unexplained investment based on seized papersThe appeal concerns the addition of cash consideration as unexplained investment chargeable to tax u/s.69C of the Act, arising from a search u/s.132 of the I.T.Act,1961. The Assessing Officer added the cash consideration mentioned in the seized paper, which was challenged by the assessee in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer did not detect any unaccounted source for the alleged payment to the vendors. The Tribunal, after considering precedents and the nature of the seized document, held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee.Issue 2: Legal principles governing addition towards capital gainThe Tribunal referred to legal principles governing the addition towards capital gain, emphasizing that the price of the land should be based on the sale consideration reflected in the registered sale deed. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal highlighted that unless it is established on record, the Department has no right to make any addition. The Tribunal further noted that the seized document lacked evidentiary value as it bore no signature and was not seized from the custody of the assessee. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's addition was unjustified and set aside the orders of the authorities below, allowing the claim of the assessee.This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by the parties and the Tribunal's decision based on legal principles and precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
