Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
