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>Tribunal quashes assessment reopening, stresses Assessing Officer's independent analysis</h1> <h3>Goodluck Commercials Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward No. 12 (2), New Delhi</h3> Goodluck Commercials Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward No. 12 (2), New Delhi - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Reopening of the assessment under sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. Addition of Rs. 34,50,200 under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.3. Addition of Rs. 3,450 on account of commission under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Reopening of the Assessment under Sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961:The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment for the A.Y. 2000-2001. The original return was filed on 19th September 2000, declaring an income of Rs. 34,510, and was processed under section 143(1). The reopening was based on information received from the Investigation Wing, indicating that the assessee had taken accommodation entries totaling Rs. 34,50,200. The A.O. recorded reasons under section 148 and issued a notice. The assessee contended that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the A.O., merely copying the Investigation Wing's report. Citing decisions from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. and Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., the assessee argued that the reopening was bad in law. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the reasons recorded were conclusions without demonstrating a link between the information and the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening was invalid and quashed the reassessment proceedings.2. Addition of Rs. 34,50,200 under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961:The A.O. added Rs. 34,50,200 to the assessee's income under section 68, considering it as unexplained credits. The assessee argued that the amounts were repayments of loans from earlier years and provided ledger accounts and letters from the parties involved. The Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening did not demonstrate a clear link between the information and the belief that the income had escaped assessment. The A.O. had not independently verified the tangible material and had merely reproduced the Investigation Wing's conclusions. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the addition under section 68 was unsustainable and deleted it.3. Addition of Rs. 3,450 on Account of Commission under Section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961:The A.O. also added Rs. 3,450 as commission for providing accommodation entries under section 69A. The assessee's challenge to this addition was linked to the overall challenge to the reopening of the assessment. Since the Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment, the addition of Rs. 3,450 was also deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the reopening of the assessment under sections 147/148 and deleting all additions made in the reassessment order. The Tribunal emphasized the need for independent application of mind by the A.O. and the necessity of demonstrating a clear link between the information and the belief that income had escaped assessment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found