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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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 :

        2019 (6) TMI 912 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        Tribunal rules credit card expenses not taxable, invalid assessment under section 153A. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal rules credit card expenses not taxable, invalid assessment under section 153A.

                            The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The credit card expenses, amounting to Rs. 10,27,552, were deemed not taxable as perquisites as they were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the company. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, citing the lack of incriminating material and the business purpose of the expenses.




                            Issues:
                            1. Validity of assessment under section 153A in absence of incriminating material.
                            2. Taxability of credit card expenses as perquisite in hands of the appellant.
                            3. Whether credit card expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

                            Issue 1: Validity of assessment under section 153A in absence of incriminating material:
                            The appellant challenged the assessment under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending that no incriminating material was found during the search. The appellant relied on the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. The Revenue, however, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) to counter the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal considered the statement of Shri Sandeep Singh Madhok, where he explained that the credit card expenses were related to the business of the company. The Tribunal noted that the case of the appellant was covered under section 132 of the Act based on the search conducted, and as no incriminating material was found during the search, the addition made on account of credit card expenses for the assessment year 2009-10 was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal also referred to a similar decision in the case of Satinder Singh Madhok, the husband of the appellant, where it was held that documents seized could not be considered incriminating.

                            Issue 2: Taxability of credit card expenses as perquisite in hands of the appellant:
                            The Assessing Officer disallowed business expenses amounting to Rs. 10,27,552 incurred through credit cards, alleging that they were for personal lifestyles and not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The appellant contended that the expenses were related to the business of the company, Jay Polychem India Limited, and were paid by the company. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the statement of Shri Sandeep Singh Madhok, held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT (A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the appellant.

                            Issue 3: Whether credit card expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes:
                            The appellant argued that the credit card expenses were incurred solely for the business of Jay Polychem India Limited, where the appellant was a director. The Assessing Officer, however, concluded that the expenses were for personal lifestyles. The Tribunal, based on the explanations provided by Shri Sandeep Singh Madhok and the absence of incriminating material during the search, held that the addition made on account of credit card expenses for the assessment year 2009-10 was not sustainable. The Tribunal referred to the legal precedent set by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla and a previous decision involving Satinder Singh Madhok, upholding the deletion of the addition.

                            This judgment addressed the issues of the validity of assessment under section 153A, the taxability of credit card expenses as a perquisite, and whether the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the absence of incriminating material during the search and the business-related nature of the credit card expenses, ultimately leading to the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found