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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2019 (2) TMI 1683 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        ITAT deletes addition by AO, upholds reassessment validity, finding Client Code Modification loss legitimate. The ITAT partially allowed the appeal by deleting the addition of Rs. 11,41,737 made by the AO. While upholding the validity of the reassessment ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          ITAT deletes addition by AO, upholds reassessment validity, finding Client Code Modification loss legitimate.

                          The ITAT partially allowed the appeal by deleting the addition of Rs. 11,41,737 made by the AO. While upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings, the ITAT found the claimed loss due to Client Code Modification (CCM) legitimate and deleted the addition. The ITAT referenced a similar case where additions for bogus losses due to CCM were deleted, concluding that the AO's actions were based on surmise and conjecture. The ITAT deemed the appellant's legal challenge to the reopening as infructuous.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Reopening of the assessment.
                          2. Validity of the reassessment proceedings.
                          3. Legitimacy of the loss claimed by the assessee due to Client Code Modification (CCM).

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Reopening of the Assessment:
                          The CIT(A) examined the reopening of the case and found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had recorded valid reasons for reopening the assessment for the year 2009-10. The AO had based the reopening on information received from the Investigation Wing at Mumbai, which indicated that the assessee had availed of entries of bogus losses amounting to Rs. 11,41,737 by indulging in Client Code Modification (CCM) and stage-managing a contrived loss.

                          2. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings:
                          The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, stating that the AO had followed all the necessary procedures and legal requirements. The CIT(A) referenced several judicial precedents to support the principle that the AO must have a "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, which is broader than mere "satisfaction." The CIT(A) found that the AO had a proximate and live link with the formation of belief, and the information received from the Investigation Wing was sufficient to reopen the assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appellant's arguments that the AO had not acted in "belief" but on mere "satisfaction" and that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.

                          3. Legitimacy of the Loss Claimed by the Assessee Due to Client Code Modification (CCM):
                          The CIT(A) found that the assessee had indulged in shifting profit and loss of share business through CCM. The AO had recorded specifics of the transactions and noted that the assessee failed to provide proper evidence to sustain its claim, such as books of accounts or objections raised with the broker. The CIT(A) observed that the appellant did not bring anything on record to prove the rationale for CCM and that the modifications were on an acceptable level. The CIT(A) referred to a SEBI Circular which mandates strict vigilance on client code modifications, allowing genuine mistakes to be rectified. The CIT(A) concluded that the modifications were not genuine and upheld the AO's action of adding back the amount of Rs. 11,41,737.

                          Separate Judgment:
                          The ITAT Kolkata referred to a similar case (M/s. Ratnabali Commodities Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO) where the addition made by the AO for bogus loss due to CCM was deleted. The ITAT found that the client code modifications were carried out within the time permitted by the NSE and that the transactions were supported by contract notes, payment of STT, and banking channels. The ITAT concluded that the AO's addition was based on surmise and conjecture, which is not permissible in law. The ITAT adopted the same reasoning to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 11,41,737 in the present case, rendering the assessee's legal ground challenging the reopening as infructuous.

                          Conclusion:
                          The appeal was partly allowed, with the ITAT deleting the addition of Rs. 11,41,737 made by the AO. The reassessment proceedings were upheld as valid, but the legitimacy of the loss claimed due to CCM was recognized, leading to the deletion of the addition.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found