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 upholds CIT(A) order in favor of assessee, dismisses revenue's appeal.

        The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (1) Raipur (C.G.) Versus Shri Subodh Singhania

        The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (1) Raipur (C.G.) Versus Shri Subodh Singhania - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,28,50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credits.
        2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on account of impugned advance received from M/s. Tirthyatra Investment & Properties Ltd. for sale of land.
        3. Failure of the assessee to justify the cash credits on account of impugned advance received against the sale of land and impugned advance from customers by producing necessary documents/evidences.
        4. Ignoring evidence brought on record by the AO that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction as per legal parameters.
        5. Deletion of additions made by the AO against the settled law of the Apex Court.
        6. Deletion of additions made by the AO without distinguishing the findings supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.
        7. Deletion of additions contrary to the decision in CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
        8. Deletion of additions contrary to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases.
        9. Deletion of additions without considering the totality of circumstances.
        10. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 6,52,712/- made under Section 14A of the IT Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules.
        11. Error in deleting the addition made under Section 14A despite provisions of Section 14A(2).
        12. Justification of CIT(A) in giving findings contrary to the evidence on record.
        13. Justification of CIT(A) in accepting the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the customers as genuine.
        14. Justification of CIT(A) in giving a decision in favor of the assessee without a nexus between the conclusion of facts and primary facts.
        15. General errors in the order of CIT(A).
        16. Any other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing.

        Detailed Analysis:

        Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,28,50,000/- under Section 68
        The AO added Rs. 1,28,50,000/- as unexplained cash credits based on the finding that the stamp papers for the 'agreements to sell' were not sold by the concerned stamp vendor, Shri Zafar Ali. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee received Rs. 62.50 lacs through banking channels and refunded Rs. 108.50 lacs through banking channels, substantiating the transactions. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not raise doubts about the affidavits filed by the parties confirming the transactions. The CIT(A) concluded that the adverse inference drawn by the AO based on the stamp vendor's statement was unjustified, especially when both parties confirmed the transactions.

        Issue 2: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- under Section 68
        The AO added Rs. 2,10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits based on the absence of the stamp paper entry in the vendor's register. The CIT(A) found that the director of M/s. Tirthyatra Investment & Properties Ltd. confirmed the transaction, and the amount was repaid through banking channels. The CIT(A) observed that the AO did not comment on the affidavit of the stamp vendor confirming the sale of the stamp paper. The CIT(A) concluded that the addition was unwarranted as the transaction was substantiated by documentary evidence and confirmations.

        Issue 3: Failure to Justify Cash Credits
        The AO argued that the assessee failed to produce necessary documents/evidences. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee provided affidavits and confirmations from the parties, substantiating the transactions. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries or disprove the submitted evidence.

        Issue 4: Ignoring Evidence by AO
        The CIT(A) found that the AO ignored the affidavits and confirmations provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO's reliance on the stamp vendor's statement without allowing cross-examination was unjustified.

        Issue 5: Deletion Against Settled Law
        The CIT(A) observed that the assessee substantiated the transactions with documentary evidence, and the adverse inference by the AO was based on uncorroborated statements, which did not align with settled legal principles.

        Issue 6: Deletion Without Distinguishing Findings
        The CIT(A) distinguished the facts of the case from the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, noting that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the transactions.

        Issue 7: Contrary to CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
        The CIT(A) found that the assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions through affidavits and banking records, contrary to the AO's findings.

        Issue 8: Contrary to Supreme Court Decisions
        The CIT(A) observed that the assessee provided satisfactory evidence for the source and nature of the credits, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

        Issue 9: Totality of Circumstances
        The CIT(A) considered the totality of circumstances, including the affidavits and banking transactions, concluding that the transactions were genuine.

        Issue 10: Deletion of Disallowance under Section 14A
        The CIT(A) vacated the disallowance of Rs. 6,52,712/- under Section 14A, noting that the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year. This decision was upheld based on judicial precedents.

        Issue 11: Error in Deleting Addition under Section 14A
        The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee did not earn any exempt income.

        Issue 12: Justification of CIT(A)'s Findings
        The CIT(A) justified the findings based on the evidence provided by the assessee, which the AO failed to disprove.

        Issue 13: Acceptance of Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness
        The CIT(A) accepted the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions based on affidavits and banking records.

        Issue 14: Decision Without Nexus
        The CIT(A) provided a detailed analysis linking the conclusions to the primary facts and evidence on record.

        Issue 15: General Errors in CIT(A)'s Order
        The Tribunal found no general errors in the CIT(A)'s order.

        Issue 16: Other Grounds
        No additional grounds were adduced at the time of hearing.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order in favor of the assessee, based on the detailed analysis and substantiation of the transactions with documentary evidence and confirmations. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A, aligning with judicial precedents.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found