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

        Court affirms Tribunal's decision on accommodation entries income. Justified reopening under Section 147. Dismisses appeal, no legal question.

        PRATIBHA FINVEST PVT LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

        PRATIBHA FINVEST PVT LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI - TMI Issues Involved
        1. Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,10,896/- as income earned by way of commission for providing accommodation entries.
        2. Whether the reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 147 was justified.
        3. Whether the additions made by the AO were substantiated by adequate evidence.
        4. Whether the Tribunal and lower authorities overlooked the materials and supporting documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
        5. Whether the findings of the ITAT and CIT(A) were perverse and not based on the materials produced.

        Detailed Analysis

        1. Tribunal's Error in Upholding Addition of Rs.1,10,896/-
        The assessee contested the ITAT's decision to uphold the addition of Rs.1,10,896/- as income earned by way of commission for providing accommodation entries. The ITAT, CIT(A), and AO all concluded that the assessee could not substantiate its claims with supporting documentary evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to explain the credit balance of Rs.55,44,816/- in its bank account and found no evidence to support the claimed business activities. The ITAT upheld this conclusion, indicating that the assessee had not been carrying on any actual business activity.

        2. Justification for Reopening Assessment Proceedings under Section 147
        The Court found that the notice under Section 147 reflected due application of mind to the objective material furnished by the Investigation Report. The AO had legitimate reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, justifying the reopening of assessment proceedings. The Court held that the AO's jurisdiction was not limited to the material that initially prompted the reopening but extended to the entire assessment.

        3. Substantiation of Additions by Adequate Evidence
        The AO, CIT(A), and ITAT all found that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate its claims. The AO noted that the assessee had deposited cash on various dates without supporting documentary evidence. The CIT(A) and ITAT both found that the assessee could not explain the credit balance in its bank account or provide evidence for the claimed business transactions, including commission received and paid.

        4. Overlooking of Materials and Supporting Documentary Evidence
        The assessee argued that the Tribunal and lower authorities overlooked the materials and supporting documentary evidence it provided. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT both reviewed the evidence presented, including bank statements and transaction details. The CIT(A) even sought a remand report from the AO, which was considered in the final decision. The Court found that the authorities did not overlook the evidence but found it insufficient to substantiate the assessee's claims.

        5. Findings of ITAT and CIT(A) as Perverse
        The assessee contended that the findings of the ITAT and CIT(A) were perverse and not based on the materials produced. The Court, however, found that the authorities had thoroughly examined the evidence and provided detailed reasons for their conclusions. The Court held that it could not re-examine the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities, as it was not a third Court of fact.

        Conclusion
        The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law that required answering. The ITAT's order was upheld, and the petition seeking intervention under Article 226 was found to be devoid of merits. The Court concluded that the reopening of assessment proceedings was justified, the additions made were substantiated by adequate evidence, and the findings of the ITAT and CIT(A) were not perverse.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found