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 Upheld Income Estimation & Unexplained Cash Credit, Disallowance of Commission Expenses</h1> <h3>Yogesh R. Mehta Versus ITO-Wd 6(2) -4, Mumbai</h3> Yogesh R. Mehta Versus ITO-Wd 6(2) -4, Mumbai - TMI Issues involved:1. Estimation of income from House Property2. Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act3. Disallowance of commission expensesEstimation of income from House Property:The appellant raised objections regarding the estimation of house property income at Rs. 36,000 by the AO. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) reasonably decided this issue, and no interference was necessary. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not press this ground seriously before the CIT (A) or the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT (A) regarding the estimation of house property income.Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act:The issue revolved around the addition of Rs. 17,61,900 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO found discrepancies in the transactions related to cash credits in the appellant's bank account. Despite the appellant's submissions and evidence, the CIT (A) rejected the explanation provided, citing discrepancies in the documents furnished. The Tribunal observed that the alleged creditors were not tax-assessed individuals. The Tribunal also highlighted inconsistencies in the documents provided by the appellant and upheld the decision of the CIT (A) to confirm the addition of Rs. 17,61,900 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.Disallowance of commission expenses:The appellant contested the disallowance of commission expenses amounting to Rs. 40,262, as the details of services rendered by the recipient were not provided during the assessment proceedings. The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the appellant failed to furnish necessary details to prove the genuineness of the commission paid. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide details of the services rendered by the recipient of the commission. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A) and confirmed the disallowance of commission expenses. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal.---
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
