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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        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

        <h1>High Court overturns Tribunal's decision on deductions for suppressed receipts, emphasizes need for clear evidence and proper guidelines.</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus Dr. Hakeem S.A. Syed Sathar</h3> The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision to grant a 42% deduction from the gross receipts to the medical practitioner for suppressed receipts, ... Addition made on account of suppressed receipts - Assessee is not entitled for the deduction of 42% from the gross receipts towards non receipt of fees and cost of medicines - block assessment - Held that:- There are no materials or guidelines or discussion of evidence with regard to deduction of 42% granted by the tribunal towards non receipt of fees and cost of medicines. Issues Involved:1. Suppression of Receipts2. Inflation of Expenses in the Purchase of Medicine3. Investing Unaccounted Income4. Bogus Sundry Debtors5. Omission to Account Advertisement Expenses6. Non-accounting of Income from Lodging House7. Relief Granted by Tribunal on Suppressed ReceiptsDetailed Analysis:Suppression of Receipts:The respondent, a medical practitioner in Unani medicine, was found to have suppressed receipts amounting to Rs. 2,59,57,634/-. The Tribunal granted a relief of Rs. 1,09,02,206/- by allowing a 42% deduction from the gross receipts, which the Revenue challenged as being without basis. The Tribunal accepted that the Assessee had been suppressing professional receipts but allowed the deduction based on an estimation that 42% of the gross receipts were not realized, which the Revenue argued was erroneous and not supported by evidence.Inflation of Expenses in the Purchase of Medicine:The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted a sum of Rs. 24,48,242/- on inflation or cost of medicines, which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Assessee's contention that 42% of the gross receipts should be allowed as a deduction for the cost of medicines, a figure initially estimated by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2001-02.Investing Unaccounted Income:The search revealed the Assessee had invested unaccounted income generated by suppressing collections. However, the Tribunal's decision did not specifically address this issue in detail, focusing instead on the suppression of receipts and the cost of medicines.Bogus Sundry Debtors:The search also uncovered bogus sundry debtors, but this issue was not separately addressed in the Tribunal's decision or the subsequent appeal.Omission to Account Advertisement Expenses:The omission to account for advertisement expenses was another issue identified during the search. However, this issue was not a focal point in the Tribunal's decision or the High Court's judgment.Non-accounting of Income from Lodging House:The Assessee failed to account for income received from a lodging house. This issue was part of the overall assessment but was not separately addressed in the Tribunal's decision or the High Court's judgment.Relief Granted by Tribunal on Suppressed Receipts:The High Court found that the Tribunal's decision to grant a 42% deduction from the gross receipts was not supported by sufficient evidence or material. The Tribunal had based its decision on the Assessee's claim that a significant portion of the quoted fees was not realized due to various reasons, such as patients discontinuing treatment. However, the High Court noted that there was no substantial evidence to support this claim and that the Tribunal's decision lacked a proper discussion of the evidence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing that any deductions should be based on clear evidence and proper guidelines.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of law. The Court emphasized the need for substantial evidence and proper guidelines in granting deductions for non-receipt of fees and the cost of medicines.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found