TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed on Section 80IA deduction challenge for block period 1996-2002. No bogus sales found.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -I, Mumbai Versus Jagdishprasad Mohanlal Joshi</h3> Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -I, Mumbai Versus Jagdishprasad Mohanlal Joshi - TMI Issues:Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deduction under Section 80IA for block period and part period from 1996-97 to 2001-02.Analysis:1. The appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning the deduction under Section 80IA for the block period and part period from 1996-97 to 2001-02. The Revenue raises a substantial question of law questioning the correctness of allowing the deduction without considering the factual evidence of bogus sales.2. During a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on March 14, 2002, no incriminating documents were found at the premises of the respondent. The Assessing Officer relied on a statement by Mr. N.C. Mehta to allege that sales claimed for deduction under Section 80IA were bogus. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under Section 158BC of the Act based on this statement.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found, by order dated May 11, 2012, that the sales were not bogus, leading to the allowance of the respondent's appeal.4. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s order, stating that there were no bogus sales to the related companies. The order emphasized that the income was disclosed in regular books of accounts during the regular assessment, hence not qualifying for block assessment under Section 158BC. The Tribunal relied on previous court decisions to support its findings.5. Both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal concluded that there were no bogus sales and that the alleged undisclosed income was reflected in the filed accounts for the respective assessment years. The findings were deemed not perverse or arbitrary, and the reliance on previous court decisions was considered appropriate. As the issue was one of fact and not shown to be perverse, no substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.6. In conclusion, the appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal regarding the deduction under Section 80IA for the specified period was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 