1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Unexplained Investment Addition Under Section 144 and 147 Upheld for Property Share Without Evidence</h1> The ITAT Delhi upheld the addition of unexplained investment under section 144 read with section 147 concerning the assessee's one-third share in property ... Assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 - unexplained investment addition in the assessee's hands regarding his 1/3rd share in purchase of property - HELD THAT:- As in light of the fact that even the assessee's assessment had been framed u/s 144 on account of his failure in filing all the supportive evidence, the tribunal finds no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)'s remand directions. Assessee's appeal is dismissed. The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT Delhi) dismissed the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal arose from an unexplained investment addition of Rs. 18,70,334/- relating to the assessee's 1/3rd share in property purchase, originally assessed under section 144 due to the assessee's failure to file supporting evidence. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte as the assessee did not appear. The Revenue's contention that the CIT(A)/NFAC rightly restored the matter to the Assessing Officer per para 9.3 of the appellate order was accepted. The Tribunal held there was 'no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)'s remand directions' and accordingly dismissed the appeal.