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

        CIT(A) can't order protective basis assessment; Tribunal directs determining real income owner.

        Natwarlal Radheshyam Bagadiya Versus Asstt. CIT Cent. Cir. 2 (1) Pune

        Natwarlal Radheshyam Bagadiya Versus Asstt. CIT Cent. Cir. 2 (1) Pune - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,18,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69 on a protective basis.
        2. Legality of protective assessment in appellate proceedings.

        Summary:

        Issue 1: Sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,18,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69 on a protective basis

        All these appeals pertain to the same assessee consequent to order passed u/s 155A(a) of the Act. The CIT(A)-I Pune sustained the addition of Rs. 2,18,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee on a protective basis. The CIT(A) observed that the seized material found in the possession of Shri Shriram Soni did not establish that the assessee had advanced funds to him, and there was no incriminating material found during the search conducted on the appellant's premises. The assessee and his family members had disclosed and offered to tax unaccounted income of Rs. 30 lakhs in returns filed in pursuance of notice u/s 153A. The CIT(A) held that the same income had been held to be taxable on a substantive basis in the case of Shri Shriram Soni, and thus, no addition could be made in the case of the appellant on a substantive basis. However, the CIT(A) directed that the income should be taxed on a protective basis to protect the interest of revenue until the issue reaches finality in appellate proceedings in the case of Shri Shriram Soni.

        Issue 2: Legality of protective assessment in appellate proceedings

        The learned counsel for the assessee opposed the CIT(A)'s finding, arguing that protective assessment at the appellate stage is not permissible. The counsel relied on several decisions, including CIT Vs. Smt. Durgawati Singh (1998) 234 ITR 249 (Alld), Prakash Wine Agencies Vs ITO (1990) 38 TTJ (All) 39, and Saipem UK Ltd. Vs. Dy. Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) Range 2(1) Mumbai (2007) 108 ITD 545 (MUM), to support the contention that appellate authorities cannot make a protective order. The Tribunal agreed with this view, stating that it was the duty of the CIT(A) to determine the real owner of the income in question and that the issue could not be left undecided in appeal. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A), after upholding the addition on a substantive basis in the other case, could not make a protective appellate order in the case of the assessee. Consequently, the direction of the CIT(A) to sustain the addition on a protective basis was vacated.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition on a protective basis and vacated the CIT(A)'s direction. All the appeals of the assessee were partly allowed.

        Decision pronounced in the open court on 13th April 2011.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found