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>Tribunal rules on assessment validity, deletion of addition, and upheld purchase suppression with penalty.</h1> The Tribunal deemed the assessment invalid for the appellant due to lack of cross-examination opportunities, leading to the deletion of an addition of Rs. ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the assessment based on anamath accounts.2. Suppression of purchases and sales.3. Estimation of turnover.4. Levy of penalty.5. Enhancement petition by the Revenue.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Assessment Based on Anamath Accounts:The appellant contested the validity of the assessment, arguing that the anamath accounts recovered from Kalyani Oil Mills were not substantiated through a confronting enquiry. The appellant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Thiru A. Mamundi Chettiar, the owner of Kalyani Oil Mills. The Tribunal found that no cross-examination was conducted, and the letter from Thiru Mamundi Chettiar could not serve as a substitute. Consequently, the assessment was deemed invalid and unsustainable on this ground.2. Suppression of Purchases and Sales:The assessment involved the suppression of purchases of groundnut kernel amounting to Rs. 79,628.10, presumed to be converted into oil and oilcake and sold without being accounted for. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had also sold groundnut kernel outright. It was held that there was no basis to infer that the unaccounted purchases were converted into oil and oilcake and sold clandestinely. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of such conversion and sales, thus rejecting the addition of Rs. 1,34,552.00 to the book turnover.3. Estimation of Turnover:For the assessment year 1969-70, the Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the total sales suppression of oil and oilcake at Rs. 2,83,266.00 taxable at 3 percent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) modified this, estimating the total suppressions at Rs. 1,34,552.00 and refixed the turnover. The Tribunal found no ground to sustain the addition of Rs. 1,34,552.00 to the book turnover and deleted the addition in full.For the assessment year 1970-71, the AO determined the total turnover at Rs. 81,38,808.70 and taxable turnover of Rs. 77,21,558.18. The AAC refixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 74,49,094.18 and total turnover at Rs. 78,66,344.70. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,16,272.00 for purchase suppression but deleted the estimated sales in oil and oilcake due to lack of proof.4. Levy of Penalty:For the year 1970-71, the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 4,614 under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which was reduced to Rs. 1,216 by the AAC. The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,216, finding no reason to interfere with the AAC's decision. The penalty was sustained only in respect of the actual suppression of the first purchase of groundnut kernel to the extent of Rs. 54,068.00.5. Enhancement Petition by the Revenue:The Revenue filed an enhancement petition seeking restoration of the turnover as taxed by the AO and enhancement of the penalty to Rs. 9,502.00. The Tribunal dismissed the enhancement petition, finding it erroneous. The actual suppression was only in respect of 331 bags valued at Rs. 54,068.00, and the penalty was correctly levied with reference to this amount.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1969-70, deleting the addition of Rs. 1,34,552.00 and dismissing the Revenue's enhancement petition. For the assessment year 1970-71, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 2,16,272.00 for purchase suppression and the penalty of Rs. 1,216, deleting the rest of the disputed turnover and dismissing the enhancement petition by the Revenue.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found