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

        <h1>Revenue appeals dismissed, assessee's appeal remanded for additional evidence</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer, 13 (2) (3), Mumbai Versus M/s Shreedham Construction Pvt Ltd. And Vice-Versa</h3> Income Tax Officer, 13 (2) (3), Mumbai Versus M/s Shreedham Construction Pvt Ltd. And Vice-Versa - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition on account of share premium/share application money/unexplained cash credit under Section 68.2. Reduction of transportation charges from work in progress.3. Reduction of purchase of goods from work in progress.4. Reduction of compensation paid on cancellation of flat booking from work in progress.5. Reduction of rent paid to slum dwellers from work in progress.6. Reduction of cash payment made to slum dwellers from work in progress.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Share Premium/Share Application Money/Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:The revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, claiming the amount was unexplained cash credit. The AO based the addition on the lack of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors, linking the transaction to Praveen Kumar Jain, an alleged entry provider. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition, noting that the AO relied on third-party statements without providing cross-examination opportunities to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the need for direct evidence linking the assessee with the alleged accommodation entries and the importance of cross-examination for fair adjudication. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents supporting the assessee's position, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Lovely Exports and the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT Vs Creative World Telefilms Ltd.2. Reduction of Transportation Charges from Work in Progress:The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's action of reducing Rs. 52,000/- from work in progress, arguing that the transportation charges did not pertain to the relevant assessment year. The assessee contended that the charges were correctly recorded in the books of the year under reference. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence provided by the assessee, including transport bills and vouchers, and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.3. Reduction of Purchase of Goods from Work in Progress:The AO reduced Rs. 45,215/- from work in progress, stating that the purchases were made from dealers declared as 'suspicious' by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this reduction. The assessee argued that no material evidence supported this reduction. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including purchase bills and vouchers, and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.4. Reduction of Compensation Paid on Cancellation of Flat Booking from Work in Progress:The AO reduced Rs. 1,00,000/- from work in progress, treating the compensation paid on flat booking cancellation as penal interest and disallowing it under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this reduction. The assessee argued that the compensation was not subject to TDS provisions. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including ledger accounts, and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.5. Reduction of Rent Paid to Slum Dwellers from Work in Progress:The AO reduced Rs. 30,35,000/- from work in progress, stating that the rent paid to slum dwellers was not necessary. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this reduction. The assessee argued that the rent was paid wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including payment details, and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.6. Reduction of Cash Payment Made to Slum Dwellers from Work in Progress:The AO reduced Rs. 25,89,156/- from work in progress under Section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this reduction. The assessee argued that the payments were justified and necessary. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including bank statements, and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2012-13, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s deletion of additions under Section 68. The Tribunal remanded the assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 back to the AO for verification of additional evidence and fresh adjudication on the issues of transportation charges, purchase of goods, compensation for flat booking cancellation, rent paid to slum dwellers, and cash payments to slum dwellers. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cross-examination, direct evidence, and fair adjudication in income tax proceedings.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found