Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (12) TMI 392

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."AY"] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following effective ground: "That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,78,946/- on the count of unexplained advances from customers u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case records perused. 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction and colonizers. The return of income of relevant assessment year was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 62,57,220/-. The case was selected under scrutiny and the AO made assessment u/s 143(3) after making certain additions. One of the additions made by the AO ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. Ld. AR for the assessee carried us to Page No. 21 of CIT(A)'s order and demonstrated that before CIT(A), the assessee demanded some time to submit evidences but ultimately could not file the same because Shri Praveen Kumar Sharma was NRI residing in USA. However, the assessee has now submitted these documents by way of additional evidences which can be validly admitted in terms of Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963. He further submitted that the controversy in present appeal involves a small sum of Rs. 3,78,946/-, hence it may be adjudicated by the Bench itself having regard to additional documents so that the litigation comes to end. Ld. DR for the revenue did not object to these submissions of assessee. Therefore, finding merit in the submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hey needed funds for personal purposes. A copy of the written request dated 10.10.2014 filed by parties is placed at Page 3 of Paper-Book. Acting upon their request, their moneys were refunded back on 17.10.2014 from ICICI Bank A/c of Mr. Amit Ahuja, director of assessee-company, copy of bank-statement is filed at Page No. 4 to 5 of Paper-Book. The repayment was made by way of transfer in foreign exchange and the assessee incurred cost on remittance of funds also, which is evident form bank statement and copies of ledger accounts filed in Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted that the lower authorities have made/confirmed addition for want of evidences but since the evidences now filed clearly establish that the assessee has not only received the su....