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 reduces unexplained expenditure addition, considers financial background.

        Ganapathi Dyavath Nirmal Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1

        Ganapathi Dyavath Nirmal Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 towards unexplained expenditure.
        2. Validity of assessment framed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 towards unexplained expenditure:

        The assessee's appeal challenges the correctness of the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained expenditure made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The AO's assessment was based on information from a search and seizure operation conducted on M/s. Arihant Educational Society, which indicated that the assessee had paid Rs. 35,00,000 for his son's admission, out of which Rs. 15,00,000 was capitation fee. The assessee contended that he paid only Rs. 30,00,000, including Rs. 10,00,000 as capitation fee, supported by cash flow statements and other documentary evidence. However, the AO added Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained expenditure due to discrepancies in the seized documents and the assessee's failure to explain the source of the additional Rs. 5,00,000.

        During the appeal proceedings, the appellant reiterated that the total fee paid was Rs. 30,00,000, and the additional Rs. 5,00,000 was a typographical error. The CIT(A) called for remand reports from the AO, who maintained that the assessee failed to furnish sources for the additional Rs. 5,00,000. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, citing the appellant's inability to explain the source of the Rs. 5,00,000.

        2. Validity of assessment framed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

        The assessee did not challenge the validity of the assessment framed under Section 153C. The departmental representative filed the AO's satisfaction note based on the seized material, confirming the payment of Rs. 5,00,000 as capitation fee.

        Tribunal's Decision:

        The Tribunal considered the rival pleadings and the seized material indicating the payment of Rs. 5,00,000 as capitation fee. It noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) considered the assessee's cash in hand for AY 2010-11, which could explain the source of the additional Rs. 5,00,000. Taking into account the assessee's social and economic status, salary income, and past savings, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2,50,000 instead of Rs. 5,00,000. This decision was made with the caveat that it should not be treated as a precedent in other cases. Consequently, the assessee was granted relief of Rs. 2,50,000, and the appeal was partly allowed.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, reducing the addition towards unexplained expenditure from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 2,50,000, considering the assessee's financial background and past savings. The validity of the assessment under Section 153C was not contested by the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 28th May 2021.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found