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

        Reopening assessment quashed, section 68 addition deleted for properly recorded derivative gains treated as unexplained cash credit

        M/s. Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd., C/o CA Himanshu Gandhi Versus ITO Ward 4 (1) (3), Mumbai

        M/s. Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd., C/o CA Himanshu Gandhi Versus ITO Ward 4 (1) (3), Mumbai - [2024] 113 ITR (Trib) 423 (ITAT [Mum]) Issues Involved:

        1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
        2. Legality of permission obtained under section 151 of the Act.
        3. Addition of Rs. 1,27,52,200 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
        4. Addition of Rs. 1,27,522 under section 69A of the Act.
        5. Different nomenclature for additions when tax rates are the same.
        6. Charging of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
        7. Penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

        The assessee contended that the notice issued under section 148 dated 31.03.2021 was invalid and should be quashed. The Assessing Officer issued the notice based on the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Tribunal found that the basis for reopening the assessment was factually incorrect, as the derivative gains from M/s. Latin Manharlal Securities Pvt. Ltd. were duly recorded in the financial statements for the year under consideration. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were deemed invalid.

        2. Legality of Permission Obtained Under Section 151 of the Act:

        The assessee argued that the permission obtained under section 151 was not in accordance with the law, as it was given mechanically by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that since the basis for reopening the assessment was incorrect, the permission obtained was also flawed.

        3. Addition of Rs. 1,27,52,200 Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

        The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had added Rs. 1,27,52,200 to the income of the assessee under section 68, alleging that the assessee had routed back its undisclosed money as profit from fictitious share transactions. However, the Tribunal found that the derivative gains of Rs. 1,27,27,019 were already included in the profit and loss account. Even if the income was not genuine or illegal, it could not be added under section 68 as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have reduced this amount from the income side and then proceeded further.

        4. Addition of Rs. 1,27,522 Under Section 69A of the Act:

        The assessee contended that the addition of Rs. 1,27,522 under section 69A, alleging payment of 1% commission on artificial gains, was incorrect. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that since the primary addition under section 68 was incorrect, the related addition under section 69A was also flawed.

        5. Different Nomenclature for Additions When Tax Rates are the Same:

        The assessee argued that additions could not be made under different nomenclatures when tax rates were the same. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that the entire basis for the additions was incorrect.

        6. Charging of Interest Under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

        The assessee contended that the interest charged under section 234B was erroneous. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that since the primary additions were incorrect, the interest charged was also flawed.

        7. Penalty Under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

        The assessee argued against the penalties invoked under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b). The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that since the primary additions were incorrect, the penalties were also unwarranted.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal concluded that the entire basis for reopening the assessment was factually incorrect. The derivative gains from M/s. Latin Manharlal Securities Pvt. Ltd. were duly recorded in the financial statements. The Assessing Officer's observations were found to be incorrect, and the impugned assessment order was quashed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned addition.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found