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

        Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions, dismissing Revenue's appeals on commission income, balances, payables, advances, and share money.

        The DCIT, Central Circle-III, Ludhiana Versus Shri. Vasu Kalia Prop., M/s Vasu Trading Company, M/s Balmukhi Textiles (P) Ltd., M/s Shiva Spinfab Pvt. Ltd., Shri Rajinder Kumar And The ACIT, Central Circle-III, Ludhiana Versus Shri Rajinder Kumar

        The DCIT, Central Circle-III, Ludhiana Versus Shri. Vasu Kalia Prop., M/s Vasu Trading Company, M/s Balmukhi Textiles (P) Ltd., M/s Shiva Spinfab Pvt. ... Issues Involved:
        1. Deletion of addition on account of Commission Income.
        2. Deletion of addition on account of differences in balances in parties' accounts.
        3. Deletion of addition on account of Sundry Payables and Loan & Advances.
        4. Deletion of addition on account of Share Application Money.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Commission Income:
        The Revenue contested the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of commission income, arguing that the assessee was merely an entry provider and that the books of accounts were not reliable. The AO had estimated the commission income based on gross receipts. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted these additions, noting that the assessee had been engaged in the business of trading of knitted cloth and fabric for a long time, and the transactions were conducted through banking channels. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had made the additions based on assumptions without pointing out specific discrepancies in the books of accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, stating that the AO failed to provide convincing evidence to support the claim that the assessee was merely an entry provider.

        2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Differences in Balances in Parties' Accounts:
        The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions made by the AO due to discrepancies in balances shown in the assessee's books and the balance sheets of other parties. The AO had considered these discrepancies as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) deleted these additions after the assessee reconciled the accounts and provided evidence proving the source of funds. The CIT(A) noted that some balances were old and appeared in previous years' balance sheets. The Tribunal found that the AO did not make any inquiries regarding the source of funds and had made the additions based on mere suspicion. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the findings.

        3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Sundry Payables and Loan & Advances:
        The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to Sundry Payables and Loan & Advances. The AO had added these amounts as undisclosed income, claiming discrepancies in the balances shown in the assessee’s books and those of other parties. The CIT(A) deleted these additions after verifying the accounts and noting that the amounts were duly reflected in both the assessee’s and the concerned parties' balance sheets. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the AO had made the additions without any substantial evidence and had ignored the reconciliations provided by the assessee.

        4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Share Application Money:
        The Revenue contested the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of Share Application Money received from various parties, arguing that the parties were entry providers with no worth of their own. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, noting that the parties were regular income tax assessees and the transactions were conducted through banking channels. The CIT(A) found that the AO had made the additions without any conclusive evidence and that the share application money was duly reflected in the balance sheets. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the AO had failed to prove that the share application money was undisclosed income and had made the additions based on mere suspicion.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals of the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)’s decisions to delete the additions made by the AO on account of commission income, differences in balances, Sundry Payables and Loan & Advances, and Share Application Money. The Tribunal found that the AO had made these additions based on assumptions and suspicions without providing substantial evidence or conducting proper inquiries. The CIT(A)’s decisions were based on thorough verification and reconciliation of accounts, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with these well-reasoned orders.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found