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>Assessee's Appeals Allowed: Deletions of Unexplained Additions under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Mrs. Anila Rasiklal Mehta, Mr. Vivek Sunil Mehta, Mr. Kaushika Sunil Mehta, Mrs. Shilpa Sudhir Mehta, Mr. Sudhir Rasiklal Mehta Versus DCIT-CC 3 (1), Mumbai</h3> Mrs. Anila Rasiklal Mehta, Mr. Vivek Sunil Mehta, Mr. Kaushika Sunil Mehta, Mrs. Shilpa Sudhir Mehta, Mr. Sudhir Rasiklal Mehta Versus DCIT-CC 3 (1), ... Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of addition of unexplained jewellery under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.2. Confirmation of addition of unexplained cash expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Confirmation of Addition of Unexplained Jewellery under Section 69A:The primary issue raised by the assessee was the confirmation of the addition of unexplained jewellery worth Rs. 26,13,971/- and unexplained cash expenditure of Rs. 13,90,000/- by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], thereby upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The jewellery was found during a search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act on 18.11.2015. The jewellery was valued by government-approved valuers and the assessee provided a reconciliation of the jewellery found.The AO added unexplained jewellery worth Rs. 26,13,971/- to the income of the assessee, which included Rs. 24,73,589/- as unexplained gold jewellery and Rs. 1,40,382/- as unexplained diamond jewellery. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition on account of unexplained gold jewellery to Rs. 18,22,856/-, allowing a relief of Rs. 6,50,733/-, but confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,40,382/- for diamond jewellery.The CIT(A) noted that the assessee's claim that the jewellery belonged to Ms. Sangeeta Mehta and Mr. Manoj Mehta, citizens of Belgium, who had kept it for personal use during their visits to India, was not supported by sufficient evidence. The AO's rejection of the confirmations filed by Mr. Manoj Mehta and Mrs. Sangita Mehta owning up the entire excess jewellery was found to be correct. However, the CIT(A) allowed an allowance for gold jewellery to the extent of 350 grams as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, which should be treated as explained.Upon appeal, the Tribunal found that the jewellery was explained by the statements of family members and the purchase bills provided. The Tribunal noted the substantial net worth of the family and the negligible amount of addition in comparison. The Tribunal was convinced that the addition was not justified and directed the AO to delete the addition, setting aside the order of the CIT(A).2. Confirmation of Addition of Unexplained Cash Expenditure under Section 69C:The second issue involved the confirmation of addition of Rs. 13,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. During the search, emails with attachments related to Ashabaug house property indicated cash payments for construction materials totaling Rs. 37,57,721/-. The AO added Rs. 13,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure after considering the cash withdrawals evidenced by the bank statements.The CIT(A) affirmed the addition, noting that the assessee's claim of cash withdrawals over several months was general and not supported by specific bills or receipts. The CIT(A) found no infirmity in the AO's action.Upon appeal, the Tribunal reviewed the cash withdrawals and found that the difference of Rs. 8,52,054/- was made up from withdrawals after 21.09.2016 till 31.03.2016. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the expenditure was met from subsequent withdrawals and noted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts correctly. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition under Section 69C.Conclusion:The appeals of the assessee were allowed for both issues. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery and unexplained cash expenditure, setting aside the orders of the CIT(A). The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 14.09.2021.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found