Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The case pertains to the addition of undisclosed income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, wherein the peak credit method was applied. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was satisfied with the assessee's business activities and cash collections deposited in bank accounts. The CIT(A) reproduced the details of the peak credit, considering opening balances in bank accounts, cash, advances, income from money lending business, and drawings. The CIT(A) determined the unexplained amount after deducting the net fund available from the peak credit. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. S. Anbukannan, which upheld the peak credit method for addition of undisclosed income, and the ITAT Chennai's order in the case of S. Kulanthaian, who is a relative of the assessee. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The case pertains to the addition of undisclosed income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, wherein the peak credit method was applied. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was satisfied with the assessee's business activities and cash collections deposited in bank accounts. The CIT(A) reproduced the details of the peak credit, considering opening balances in bank accounts, cash, advances, income from money lending business, and drawings. The CIT(A) determined the unexplained amount after deducting the net fund available from the peak credit. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. S. Anbukannan, which upheld the peak credit method for addition of undisclosed income, and the ITAT Chennai's order in the case of S. Kulanthaian, who is a relative of the assessee. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
