Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

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>Tribunal sets aside assessment increase, citing CIT(Appeals) overreach. High Court's order prevails.</h1> <h3>M/s Radiance Realty Developers India Limited, C/o M/s Ramesh & Ramachandran Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order to enhance the assessment by Rs. 11.50 Crores. The Tribunal held that the ... Enhancement of income - assessee has paid only ₹ 1 Crore and it received property to the extent of ₹ 12.5 Crores, therefore, the balance of ₹ 11.5 Crores added as income of the assessee - dispute between the parties in regard to sale of property - compromise order / decree by HC - Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan have to pay ₹ 14.5 Crores to the assessee-company. Out of which, ₹ 12 Crores has to be paid on or before 31st March, 2013 and the balance ₹ 2.5 crores shall be paid in equal monthly instalments Held that:- This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the High Court passed an order directing Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan to pay ₹ 14.5 Crores, the CIT(Appeals) or any other officer of the Department cannot go beyond the judgment of Madras High Court. In lieu of payment of ₹ 14.5 Crores, Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth executed a sale deed for ₹ 12.5 Crores and the balance has to be paid by Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan. The judgment of Madras High Court clearly says that Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan are jointly or severally liable to pay the money. In compliance with the direction of the High Court, Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth executed the documents for discharge of his liability. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in enhancing the assessment by holding that the assessee has paid only ₹ 1 Crore and it received property to the extent of ₹ 12.5 Crores, therefore, the balance of ₹ 11.5 Crores as income of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Enhancement of assessment to the extent of Rs. 11.50 Crores.Detailed Analysis:1. Facts and Background:The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2014-15, where the only issue is the enhancement of assessment by Rs. 11.50 Crores. The assessee entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with land aggregators for the purchase of 50 acres of land. Due to various reasons, a civil suit was filed, resulting in a compromise decree by the Madras High Court.2. Assessee's Contentions:The assessee's representative argued that the CIT(Appeals) ignored the High Court's order directing payment of Rs. 14.5 Crores by the land aggregators. The representative emphasized that the CIT(Appeals) wrongly concluded that the assessee only paid Rs. 1 Crore, whereas the High Court order clearly stated the liability of the aggregators to pay Rs. 14.5 Crores.3. Legal Jurisprudence:The representative cited legal precedents to support the argument that the CIT(Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment beyond what was considered by the Assessing Officer. The representative relied on judgments by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court to assert that the CIT(Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to include the additional Rs. 11.50 Crores as income.4. Department's Argument:The Departmental Representative contended that the CIT(Appeals) had the authority to assess income not considered by the Assessing Officer. However, the Department's argument was refuted by the assessee's representative, emphasizing the limitations on the CIT(Appeals)'s jurisdiction.5. Tribunal's Decision:After considering all submissions and the relevant material, the Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in enhancing the assessment by Rs. 11.50 Crores. The Tribunal emphasized that the High Court's order directing the payment of Rs. 14.5 Crores should be the guiding factor, and the CIT(Appeals) could not surpass this judgment. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(Appeals) exceeded its authority, leading to the deletion of the additional assessment of Rs. 11.50 Crores.6. Final Verdict:Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order of enhancing the assessment by Rs. 11.50 Crores. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in court on 12th November 2018 in Chennai.This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, legal precedents, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the enhancement of assessment in the mentioned legal judgment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found