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 reassessment, rules against Rs. 65 lakhs addition under section 68.</h1> <h3>M/s. Fashionage Corporation (P) Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Circle-1 (1), New Delhi</h3> M/s. Fashionage Corporation (P) Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Circle-1 (1), New Delhi - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. Addition of Rs. 65 lakhs under section 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961:The assessee filed the original return of income on 2nd December 2003, declaring a loss of Rs. 17,22,956. The return was processed under section 143(1) on 26th February 2003. Subsequently, a reassessment order under section 147 was passed on 26th October 2007, resulting in a loss of Rs. 13,22,956. Another notice under section 148 was issued on 30th March 2010, leading to an ex-parte reassessment order under section 144/147 dated 16th December 2010, adding Rs. 65 lakhs as unexplained cash credit.The assessee challenged the reassessment order before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the reopening based on fresh information from ADIT (Inv.) and the statement of Shri Harish Pawar. The Tribunal noted that the validity of reopening must be determined with reference to the reasons recorded under section 147/148. The reasons recorded on 25th March 2010 were based on information already available during the earlier reassessment proceedings completed on 26th October 2007. The Tribunal found that there was no new material or tangible information to justify the reopening of the assessment after four years, as required by the proviso to section 147.The Tribunal observed that the A.O. attempted to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier, which is not permissible under the law. Citing precedents from the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.2. Addition of Rs. 65 lakhs under section 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit:The A.O. made an addition of Rs. 65 lakhs under section 68 based on the information that the assessee received accommodation entries from Shri Harish Pawar. The assessee disclosed the receipt of Rs. 65 lakhs in the original return, and this information was available with the A.O. during the initial reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. did not make this addition in the original reassessment order dated 26th October 2007.The Tribunal found that the A.O. had no new material to justify the addition of Rs. 65 lakhs in the subsequent reassessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts in the original return, and there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was barred by time and invalid, rendering the addition of Rs. 65 lakhs unsustainable.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below, quashed the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148, and deleted the entire addition of Rs. 65 lakhs. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found