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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        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

        <h1>ITAT affirms CIT(A) decision, rejects revenue's claims for A.Y. 2001-02, 2004-05, and 2006-07</h1> The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in all three appeals for A.Y. 2001-02, 2004-05, and 2006-07, dismissing the revenue's claims. The tribunal concluded ... Unexplained deposits in bank a/c of assessee - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As per section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if source of receipts was not established, then it could have been taxed under the said provision. Per contra, there is no provision in the Act to tax an amount or proceed of receipt the source of which has been explained or stands established. In the present case, the source of impugned receipts by the assessee are proceeds of NRNR deposit and interest on RBI Bonds received by father of the assessee Shri Suresh Nanda and if these proceeds have been found to be taxable in the hands of Shri Suresh Nanda, then the question of taxing the same u/s 68 of the Act would not arise. Ld. DR could not controvert these findings of the ld. CIT(A), thus, we are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and we uphold the same. - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Unexplained deposits in the bank account for A.Y. 2001-02.2. Unexplained deposits in the bank account for A.Y. 2004-05.3. Unexplained investment for A.Y. 2006-07.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Unexplained deposits in the bank account for A.Y. 2001-02:The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 50,00,000/- added by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained deposits in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) observed that the amount was received by the assessee from his father through account payee cheques, sourced from NRNR deposits and interest on RBI Bonds. The CIT(A) concluded that since the source of the funds was established and taxed in the hands of the assessee's father, it could not be taxed again under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that there was no provision to tax an amount whose source has been explained, thus dismissing the revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2001-02.2. Unexplained deposits in the bank account for A.Y. 2004-05:The revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 12,00,000/- added by the AO for unexplained deposits. The CIT(A) found that the amount was received from the assessee's father via an account payee cheque, with the source being a remittance from abroad credited to the father's NRE account. The CIT(A) reiterated that the source of the funds was clear and undisputed, and since it was taxed in the father's hands, it could not be taxed again under section 68. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the amount was properly explained and could not be treated as an unexplained receipt, dismissing the revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2004-05.3. Unexplained investment for A.Y. 2006-07:The revenue objected to the deletion of Rs. 23,57,038/- added by the AO for unexplained investment. The CIT(A) noted that the payments made to Craig Roberts Associates Inc. were from the father's Singapore account, to which the assessee was a co-signatory. The CIT(A) emphasized that the source of the payments was clear and had been taxed in the father's hands. The CIT(A) also considered the applicability of section 56 and concluded that the amount could not be taxed as a gift or unexplained investment. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the source was established and the amount could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, thus dismissing the revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2006-07.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed all three appeals of the revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders for A.Y. 2001-02, 2004-05, and 2006-07. The tribunal agreed that the amounts in question were properly explained, sourced from the assessee's father's accounts, and could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee. The judgments emphasized that there is no provision to tax an amount whose source has been established and already taxed in another's hands.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found