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 directs re-examination of additions without incriminating material</h1> <h3>Shri Sanjay Mehta, Smt. Seema Mehta, Mrs. Sandhya Sahlot, Mr. Surendra Mehta, Mr. Sandeep Mehta, Mrs. Priya Mehta, Mr. Hitesh Mehta, Mr. Arun Sahlot, Bhopal Versus ACIT (3) (1), Bhopal</h3> Shri Sanjay Mehta, Smt. Seema Mehta, Mrs. Sandhya Sahlot, Mr. Surendra Mehta, Mr. Sandeep Mehta, Mrs. Priya Mehta, Mr. Hitesh Mehta, Mr. Arun Sahlot, ... Issues Involved:1. Timeliness of filing Miscellaneous Applications (MAs).2. Non-adjudication of specific legal grounds by the Tribunal.3. Additions made in respect of years without incriminating material.4. Additions based on rough notings in a diary without corroboration by independent evidence.Detailed Analysis:1. Timeliness of Filing Miscellaneous Applications (MAs):The assessee(s) filed Miscellaneous Applications under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of apparent mistakes in the Tribunal’s orders dated 22.03.2013, 16.04.2013, and 30.04.2013. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that these applications were filed within the stipulated time of four years, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Distt. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. UOI (2017) 86 taxmann.com 176 (MP). The Tribunal agreed with this proposition and admitted the MAs for adjudication.2. Non-Adjudication of Specific Legal Grounds by the Tribunal:The assessee(s) contended that two common issues raised in their grounds of appeal were not adjudicated by the Tribunal. These issues were:- No addition should be made for years where no incriminating material was found as the assessments stood completed under sections 143(3)/143(1) and were not pending on the date of search.- No addition should be made based on rough notings in a diary found during the search without corroboration by independent evidence.The Tribunal acknowledged that these issues remained undecided and warranted rectification under section 254(2).3. Additions Made in Respect of Years Without Incriminating Material:The Tribunal examined the first issue, which questioned the additions made for assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07, where no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the original assessments for these years were completed and not pending on the date of the search. The Tribunal referred to the Special Bench Decision in All Cargo Global vs. DCIT and the case of Gurinder Singh Bawa, which held that additions for completed assessments should not be made in the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine whether any incriminating material was found during the search and whether the assessments for these years were concluded and non-abated. If no incriminating material was found, the AO should not make any additions.4. Additions Based on Rough Notings in a Diary Without Corroboration by Independent Evidence:The second issue involved additions made based on rough notings in a diary found during the search. The assessee argued that these notings were merely business proposals and not actual financial transactions, and no independent corroborative material was provided by the AO. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not examine or cross-examine the assessee or the alleged recipients of the payments noted in the diary. The Tribunal emphasized that additions cannot be made based on rough jottings without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing that additions should only be made if a proper nexus is established and corroborated with relevant material.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Applications to the extent that the two common issues remained to be adjudicated. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issues of additions for assessment years without incriminating material and additions based on rough notings in the diary, providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee(s). The order was pronounced in the open Court on 25.03.2021.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found