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>Tribunal orders fresh valuation of silver ornaments, emphasizes fair opportunity for assessee.</h1> <h3>M/s Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf Versus ACIT-Circle-1, Allahabad, Dy. CIT-Circle-1, Allahabad Versus M/s Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf And M/s Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf Versus DCIT-Circle-3, Allahabad.</h3> M/s Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf Versus ACIT-Circle-1, Allahabad, Dy. CIT-Circle-1, Allahabad Versus M/s Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf And ... Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of additions made under Section 143(3) of the IT Act.2. Validity of the assessment of the purity of silver ornaments.3. Justification of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in reducing the addition.4. Consideration of the declared income and books of accounts.5. Legitimacy of interest charged under various sections of the IT Act.6. Right to take fresh grounds of appeal.Summary:1. Legitimacy of Additions under Section 143(3) of the IT Act:The assessee challenged the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, arguing that the additions made by the assessing officer were arbitrary and unjustified. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly confirmed these additions, which the assessee found incorrect.2. Validity of the Assessment of the Purity of Silver Ornaments:The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 2,60,88,428/- made by the assessing officer based on the departmental valuer's report, which estimated the purity of silver ornaments. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced this addition to Rs. 79,17,668/- by adjusting the purity from 65% to 52% without supporting evidence. The assessee argued that this reduction was still unjustified. The departmental valuer's failure to offer a satisfactory explanation for the purity assessment led to the conclusion that the basis for the addition was unwarranted and illegal.3. Justification of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Reducing the Addition:The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the departmental valuer and found no scientific method was used to determine the purity of silver ornaments. The Commissioner estimated the purity at 52% based on local inquiries and other cases, which the assessee argued was correct. However, the tribunal found this estimation unreasonable and directed a fresh determination by an expert valuer.4. Consideration of the Declared Income and Books of Accounts:The assessee maintained audited books of accounts and disclosed turnover accepted by the Sales Tax department. The tribunal noted that there was no discrepancy in cash or gold ornaments but found issues with the valuation of silver ornaments. The tribunal directed the assessing officer to reconsider the valuation of silver ornaments with the aid of an expert valuer and to account for the opening stock of silver declared in the books.5. Legitimacy of Interest Charged under Various Sections of the IT Act:The assessee argued that the interest charged under different sections of the IT Act was unjustified and illegal. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.6. Right to Take Fresh Grounds of Appeal:The assessee reserved the right to take any fresh grounds of appeal before the hearing. The tribunal allowed the assessee to present new evidence and explanations during the set-aside proceedings.Conclusion:The tribunal set aside the orders related to the valuation of silver ornaments and directed a fresh assessment by the assessing officer with the assistance of an expert valuer. The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed. The tribunal emphasized the need for proper and adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found