TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows appeal, emphasizes objective tax assessments, permits loss set-off.</h1> <h3>Ragavs Diagnostic & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (4), Bangalore</h3> Ragavs Diagnostic & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (4), Bangalore - TMI Issues:1. Tax treatment of additional income declared during search proceedings.2. Application of section 69C for taxing undisclosed income.3. Justification of tax assessment under section 115BBE.Analysis:1. The appellant, a private limited company operating a medical diagnostic center, declared a loss in the return of income for the relevant year. During a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, additional income of Rs. 5,39,50,000 was agreed upon to be spread over multiple assessment years. However, an amount of Rs. 53,85,000 related to the assessment year in question was inadvertently omitted from the return.2. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the additional income as a separate item and taxed it under section 115BBE, without adjusting it against the business loss. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision under section 69C, deeming the amount as undisclosed income. The appellant contended that the additional income was not undisclosed but part of the agreed amount during search proceedings, attributing the omission to the sickness of their tax-related personnel.3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 69C, emphasizing that the AO's satisfaction must be based on objective material, not conjectures. The Tribunal found that the unexplained expenditure was sourced from the business receipts of the appellant, and the AO did not present contrary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additional income should not be taxed under section 115BBE. The appellant was allowed to set off the current year loss against the additional income offered as business income.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant and deleting the impugned addition. The decision highlighted the importance of objective satisfaction by tax authorities and the need to base assessments on concrete evidence rather than assumptions or conjectures.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
