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>Appeal dismissal due to delay, new evidence admitted, issues remanded for verification, and deletions made.</h1> <h3>M/s. TBZ Nirmal Zaveri Versus ACIT 16 (2), Mumbai and Vice-Versa</h3> M/s. TBZ Nirmal Zaveri Versus ACIT 16 (2), Mumbai and Vice-Versa - TMI Issues Involved:1. Limitation on the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the revision order under Section 263.2. Admission of additional evidence regarding legal and professional fees.3. Addition relating to unaccounted sales of gold.4. Addition relating to unaccounted purchases of finished goods.Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation on the Appeal Filed by the Assessee:The appeal filed by the assessee challenging the revision order passed under Section 263 of the I.T. Act was barred by limitation by 637 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the erstwhile tax consultant's failure to advise on filing the appeal. The Tribunal found this reason unconvincing and declined to condone the delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in ITA No. 1252/Mum/2014 in limine.2. Admission of Additional Evidence Regarding Legal and Professional Fees:The assessee was aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)'s refusal to admit additional evidence related to the disallowance of legal and professional fees amounting to Rs. 20,77,576/-. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the expenses due to the lack of certain details, which the assessee later provided to the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided that the additional evidence should be admitted. The issue was remanded to the AO for re-examination with directions to consider the additional evidence and any further information provided by the assessee.3. Addition Relating to Unaccounted Sales of Gold:The AO identified a discrepancy in the quantity details of gold consumption and finished goods, suspecting unaccounted sales of approximately 30,000 grams of gold, valued at Rs. 2,55,87,625/-. The assessee claimed a typographical error in the quantity details of 18-carat stone-studded jewelry. The AO accepted the possibility of a typographical error but was concerned with 40,950.66 grams of gold shown as issued to Karigars at zero value. The Tribunal found that the AO's quantification methodology needed further verification. The issue was remanded to the AO to verify if the 40,950.66 grams of gold issued to Karigars at zero value was included in the manufactured items also at zero value. If the assessee's contention was correct, no addition would be warranted.4. Addition Relating to Unaccounted Purchases of Finished Goods:The AO computed unaccounted purchases of finished goods based on the stock statement furnished to the bank, concluding suppressed purchases of Rs. 65,01,324/-. The assessee argued that the stock statement was provisional and the values shown were average values. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not examine the quantity details of raw materials and finished goods in the assessee's books of accounts. The CIT(A) found the AO's computation to be based on surmises and conjectures and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's estimate was unjustified without finding faults in the books of accounts.Conclusion:- The appeal in ITA No. 1252/M/14 was dismissed due to the delay.- The issue regarding legal and professional fees was remanded for re-examination.- The issue of unaccounted sales of gold was remanded for verification.- The deletion of the addition relating to unaccounted purchases was upheld.Order Pronounced:The final order was pronounced in the Court on 8.2.2017, with the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3676/M/2014 treated as allowed, and the appeal of the revenue treated as partly allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found