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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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>Appeal dismissed: Double taxation avoided in Income Tax Act case.</h1> The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,54,73,420/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ... Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - Addition emanated from noting in a diary found during search conducted on the assessee’s premises - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- There was no categorical admission by the assessee of the notings in the diary as all pertaining to him in his personal capacity, on the contrary he had stated that it related to his business also. CIT(A) has found that all income relating to entries noted in the diary stood disclosed by the partnership to and accepted by the settlement commission. This fact is not disputed before us - we agree with the CIT(A) that the objection of the ld.Pr.CIT to the ITSC being overruled by acceptance of income by ITSC, the said objection was irrelevant to merit any consideration while framing assessment in the hands of the assessee. Where the assessee had stated the notings in the diary as relating to his business and which stood disclosed by its partnership firm to the settlement commission, who in turn accepted the same also, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made in the hands of the assessee finding the said income to be doubly assessed to taxed. Decided in favour of assesse. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C.2. Whether the impugned amount had already been surrendered by the partnership firm in its settlement application.3. Whether adding the same amount in the hands of the assessee would tantamount to double addition.4. Whether the assessee had admitted to the transactions as pertaining to his unaccounted income and expenditure.Summary:Issue 1: Deletion of Addition Made by AO on Account of Unexplained Expenditure under Section 69CThe appeal was filed by the Revenue against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,54,73,420/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition emanated from notings in a diary found during a search at the assessee's premises, which allegedly contained details of receipts and payments. The AO did not accept the assessee's claim that this income was already disclosed by the partnership firm, M/s. Laxmi Constructions, in its settlement petition.Issue 2: Surrender of Impugned Amount by Partnership Firm in Settlement ApplicationThe assessee argued that the total of notings in the diary amounted to Rs. 3,91,33,420/-, which after eliminating duplicate entries, came to Rs. 2,54,73,420/-. The partnership firm had surrendered Rs. 1,66,98,800/- to the Settlement Commission, which was accepted. The AO, however, made an addition of Rs. 2,54,73,420/- to the income of the assessee, despite the firm's surrender.Issue 3: Double AdditionThe CIT(A) noted that the impugned amount had already been surrendered by the partnership firm and accepted by the Settlement Commission. Adding the same amount again in the hands of the assessee would result in double taxation, which is not permissible under the Act. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had not admitted the amount as pertaining to him in his individual capacity and deleted the entire addition.Issue 4: Admission of Transactions by AssesseeThe Revenue argued that the assessee had admitted to the transactions as pertaining to his unaccounted income and expenditure. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee did not categorically admit the notings as relating to him personally. The assessee had stated that the notings related to his business, which was disclosed by the partnership firm to the Settlement Commission.Conclusion:The CIT(A) concluded that the income relating to the entries in the diary was already disclosed by the partnership firm and accepted by the Settlement Commission. Therefore, adding the same amount to the assessee's income would result in double taxation. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue were rejected, and the order was pronounced on 11th October 2023 at Ahmedabad.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found