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 Dismisses Appeal: No Substantial Question of Law Found in Protective Addition Case for AY 2010-11.</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -2 Versus Electrical And Electronic India Ltd.</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -2 Versus Electrical And Electronic India Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:The appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, where the appellant/revenue seeks to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the sustainability of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13.Merits Issue:The main issue raised before the Tribunal was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained investments made by the appellant/respondent in the JP Minda Group of companies. The aggregate amount invested was Rs. 4,05,00,000, and the addition in the hands of the respondent/assessee was made on a protective basis, with the substantive addition made in the hands of the JP Minda Group.Judgment Details:A coordinate bench had previously addressed the challenge concerning the JP Minda Group in a judgment dated 26.09.2023, where the substantive addition made in the hands of the JP Minda Group was dropped on merits. The addition was dropped based on a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of the court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the appellant/revenue since the substantive addition on merits was dropped, and the addition in the hands of the respondent/assessee was only made on a protective basis.Conclusion:Considering that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by the court in these circumstances, the appeal was closed accordingly.
TaxTMI 