Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 768 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (8) TMI 768 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - TMI - Addition u/s.69B - understatement of the cost of imported machinery - Tribunal deleted the addition - Held that:- Tribunal has considered the provisions of Section 69B of the Act and has come to the conclusion that the onus is on the revenue to show that the assessee has expanded extra amount i.e. the amount invested by the assessee is more than the amount as recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal has concluded that the revenue has failed to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee - TAX APPEAL NO. 805 of 2007 - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench D (hereinafter referred to as ITAT) dated 13. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

right in law in setting aside the addition of ₹ 84 lacs as deemed income u/s.69B made on account of undisclosed cash payment for the construction of the assessee's factory? F. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the addition of ₹ 7.59 lacs as deemed income u/s.69B made on account of undisclosed expenditure in cash on the basis of entries in the seized paper? G. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nfirmed by the CIT(A). On other three issues, the order of CIT(A) was set aside and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer with specific directions. 3. So far as issues no. C, F, & G are concerned, the same have been remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and therefore we are not inclined to disturb the same. Therefore, questions no. (C ), (F) & (G) are not decided and the same are kept open. 4. This takes us to the remaining sole question which in with regard .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

voices for US $ 47 lakhs and US $ 6,75,000 respectively aggregating to US $ 53,75,000 as per pages 8 and 9 of Annexure A/1. He submitted that the value of machinery capitalized in the books of assessee was only US $ 35 lakhs. Thus the investment to the extent of US $ 18,75,000 equivalent to ₹ 8,82,18,750 represented unaccounted investment by the assessee which was added by the Assessing Officer u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) after confronting the assessee with the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cord to show that the assessee had made the balance payment to the Italian Company; instead the evidence was that the payments were made by NRIS. He submitted that the Tribunal has not denied, rather accepted the fact that as against the cost of machinery US $ 35 lakhs debited in the books of account, the payment received by the Italian supplier was US $ 53,75,000 which was evident from the confirmation, copy of account and other documents. 5.2 Mr. Parikh submitted that the Tribunal misinterpret .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ade on behalf of the company. He submitted that it is settled law that it is the true nature and quality of the transaction and not the manner of entries made in the books of account that is material for the computation of income under the provisions of the Act. 6. Mr. Davawala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the assessee has only bough .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version