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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2021 (6) TMI 268 - 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 confirms income tax appeal decision, dismisses Revenue's case. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)' decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, concluding that the income ...
                      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 confirms income tax appeal decision, dismisses Revenue's case.

                          The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)' decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, concluding that the income and expenditure belonged to the company, not the individual. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as they failed to provide evidence indicating otherwise. The correct entity, M/s. VNR Infrastructure Ltd., was deemed liable for assessment.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Unexplained expenditure and income additions for assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-15.
                          2. Whether the additions should be assessed in the hands of the individual or the company.
                          3. Validity of the assessment based on the statements recorded during the search.

                          Issue-wise Analysis:

                          1. Unexplained Expenditure and Income Additions:
                          The Revenue's appeals concerned the reversal of the Assessing Officer's action by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who deleted additions of unexplained expenditure and income for the years 2010-11 to 2014-15. The amounts were Rs. 2,55,20,578, Rs. 2,22,10,994, Rs. 43,94,74,187, Rs. 6,53,44,000, and Rs. 7,09,61,473 respectively, along with unexplained income additions of Rs. 1 crore, Rs. 2.10 crores, and Rs. 4,99,61,473 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

                          2. Assessment in Individual vs. Company:
                          The primary contention was whether the income and expenditure should be assessed in the hands of the individual (Managing Director) or the company (M/s. VNR Infrastructure Ltd.). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the seized materials and entries related to the company's business activities and not to the individual. Therefore, the income should be taxed in the company's hands, not the individual’s.

                          3. Statements During Search:
                          The Assessing Officer made additions based on statements recorded during the search, where the individual admitted to certain incomes. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that these admissions were later clarified, indicating that the income pertained to the company. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) emphasized that income must be taxed in the correct hands, referencing the Supreme Court decision in ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah, which mandates taxing the right person.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          Unexplained Expenditure and Income Additions:
                          The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reviewed the detailed submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, which indicated that the income and expenditure in question were related to the company’s business activities. The assessee had provided a reconciliation of the seized materials with the company's books of accounts, showing that the transactions were recorded in the company's accounts.

                          Assessment in Individual vs. Company:
                          The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the income and expenditure should be assessed in the hands of M/s. VNR Infrastructure Ltd. and not the individual. This was based on the principle that the right person should be taxed, as established in the Supreme Court's decision in ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah. The Commissioner also referenced the corporate law principle from Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd., which treats a company as a distinct legal entity separate from its directors.

                          Statements During Search:
                          The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that while the individual had admitted to certain incomes during the search, these admissions were later clarified to pertain to the company. The Assessing Officer had not provided any contradictory evidence to refute this claim. The Commissioner emphasized that the assessment should be based on evidence and that the income should be taxed in the hands of the entity to which it legally belongs.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer, concluding that the income and expenditure pertained to the company and not the individual. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the Revenue did not provide any evidence to indicate that the income belonged to the individual rather than the company. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the correct entity was taxed.

                          Final Order:
                          The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was upheld. The Tribunal concluded that the income and expenditure should be assessed in the hands of M/s. VNR Infrastructure Ltd. and not the individual. The decision was pronounced in the open court on April 21, 2021.
                          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