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
  • 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

        -

        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>Court allows appeals, sets aside tribunal decision on VDIS jewellery matching declaration. Ruling favors appellants.</h1> <h3>Bhurat Sunilkumar (HUF), Bhurat Anilkumar (HUF) Versus Income Tax Officer W-2 (2)</h3> Bhurat Sunilkumar (HUF), Bhurat Anilkumar (HUF) Versus Income Tax Officer W-2 (2) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the weight of jewellery declared under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) matches the weight claimed by the assessee based on invoices.2. Whether the tribunal erred in not relying on its previous decisions under similar facts.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Weight of Jewellery Declared Under VDISThe appellants voluntarily disclosed gold and diamond jewellery under Section 65(1) of VDIS 1997, accompanied by a valuation report detailing the items' weight and other particulars. This declaration was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, and a Certificate under Section 68(2) of VDIS 1997 was issued. The appellants later filed income tax returns for the Assessment Year 1998-99, declaring negative income from the sale of the VDIS-declared jewellery, which had been smelted into bullion and sold. During scrutiny, the appellants produced the valuation reports, original purchase invoices, and an affidavit from the goldsmith to substantiate their claims. However, the assessing officer rejected the capital gains income and taxed the entire sale consideration under Section 68 of the IT Act. The rejection was based on the grounds that the premises mentioned in the invoices were not occupied by the involved parties, and the affidavit from the goldsmith lacked evidentiary value.Upon review, it was found that the assessing officer did not confront the appellants with the evidence collected during the enquiry, which was used against them. The appellants had provided sufficient documentation, including valuation reports and bank drafts, to prove that the sold items were the same as those declared under VDIS. The tribunal's failure to consider these documents and the lack of opportunity given to the appellants to rebut the evidence collected during the enquiry were significant errors.Issue 2: Tribunal's Reliance on Previous DecisionsThe tribunal had previously dealt with similar cases where the appellants had declared jewellery under VDIS, smelted it through the same refinery, and sold it. In those cases, the tribunal accepted the appellants' claims, noting that the items' weight and other details matched those in the valuation reports submitted under VDIS. For instance, in ITA No.102/BANG/2016 and ITA No.103/BANG/2016, the tribunal found that the appellants had sufficiently demonstrated that the gold and diamonds sold were the same as those declared under VDIS, despite the assessing officer's reliance on outdated and non-conclusive evidence.In the present case, the tribunal failed to apply the same reasoning and did not consider the appellants' evidence, which included similar valuation reports and invoices. The tribunal's inconsistency in handling identical facts and its failure to apply the ratio of its earlier decisions were highlighted as serious errors.ConclusionThe tribunal's decision was set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed. The court concluded that the appellants had sufficiently established that the jewellery sold was the same as that declared under VDIS, and the tribunal should have relied on its previous decisions in similar cases. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellants and against the Revenue.Order:1. ITA Nos.100005-100006/2018 are allowed.2. The order dated 11.08.2017 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘C’, in ITA No.2095/Bang/2016 and ITA No.2096/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 1998-99 is set aside.3. Appeals filed by the assessees before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘C’, are allowed.4. No order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found