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
  • 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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        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

        <h1>ITAT directs reassessment of tax additions: discrepancies in TDS income & property valuation</h1> <h3>Govind Ganpatlal Thakkar Versus A.C.I.T (OSD), Circle-10, Ahmedabad.</h3> Govind Ganpatlal Thakkar Versus A.C.I.T (OSD), Circle-10, Ahmedabad. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 11,87,796/- due to mismatch between TDS and income shown.2. Addition of Rs. 39,68,928/- under section 50C of the Income Tax Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 11,87,796/- due to mismatch between TDS and income shown:The first issue concerns the confirmation by the CIT(A) of an addition of Rs. 11,87,796/- made by the AO due to a discrepancy between the gross income shown in the assessee's books and the income reported in Form 26AS issued by the Revenue. The assessee, engaged in the trading of PVC raw materials, had different heads of income such as interest, contractual receipts, and commission. The AO found discrepancies in these amounts, notably under sections 194A, 194C, and 194H of the Act.The assessee explained that the differences arose due to various reasons, including the inclusion of service tax in the income on which TDS was deducted, incorrect TDS deductions by clients under wrong sections, and waived interest amounts on delayed payments. Despite these explanations, the AO did not find sufficient corroborative evidence and added the difference to the total income.Upon appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to fully reconcile the discrepancies. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the reconciliation statements and ledger accounts provided were not properly considered by the lower authorities. The Revenue did not object to a fresh adjudication.The ITAT noted that the reconciliation statements were indeed necessary to resolve the dispute and found that the lower authorities had not considered these statements. Consequently, the ITAT restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing that the reconciliation statements be duly considered as per the law. Thus, the appeal on this ground was allowed for statistical purposes.2. Addition of Rs. 39,68,928/- under section 50C:The second issue involves the confirmation by the CIT(A) of an addition of Rs. 39,68,928/- under section 50C of the Act. The assessee had acquired a godown and sold it in the relevant assessment year for Rs. 3,31,000/-. The AO found that the Jantry value (stamp duty value) of the property was much higher at Rs. 40,550/- per square meter. The assessee contended that the property was located in an unauthorized area with unclear title, and thus, the sale consideration should not be based on the stamp value.The AO rejected the assessee's valuation report, citing various deficiencies and inconsistencies, and invoked section 50C to adopt the stamp value for computing the capital gain. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, stating that the stamp value should be considered as per section 50C.The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the property was unauthorized and should not be subject to section 50C. The Revenue countered that there was no evidence to suggest the land was agricultural or that the ownership was disputed.The ITAT reviewed the case and noted that the property transfer satisfied the conditions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, making section 50C applicable. However, the ITAT found that the AO had not referred the valuation report to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) as required under section 50C(2) of the Act. The ITAT directed the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for a fair valuation of the property and to decide the issue afresh based on the DVO's valuation. Thus, the appeal on this ground was also allowed for statistical purposes.Conclusion:In conclusion, the ITAT restored both issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing proper consideration of the reconciliation statements and a referral to the DVO for property valuation, respectively. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found