Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-07 Versus M/s Omni Info World Pvt. Ltd.

2016 (8) TMI 962 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Addition on account of unexplained cash - Held that:- As asserted by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Department has disputed the books of accounts of the Assessee, the passage from the impugned order of the ITAT states to the contrary. There is not a single line in the memorandum of appeal before this Court to that effect. Learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the decision in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AP (1980 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ) wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

29-7-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Najmi Waziri, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing counsel and Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Kapil Goel, Advocate. ORDER 29.07.2016 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 23rd November 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No.1837/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2009-10. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT to the extent it has de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Mr Vishan Sngh and Mr Mukesh Kumar Jadon. A sum of ₹ 45 lakhs was seized. Mr. Jadon in his statement admitted to have carried ₹ 25 lakhs on 5th August 2008 to be delivered to the Bhubaneshwar office. He was supposed to have delivered cash of ₹ 8 lakhs in Chennai on 6th June 2008. By a letter dated 23rd December 2010, the Assessee was asked to explain why a sum of ₹ 78 lakhs should not be treated as unexplained income and added to its income for the AY 2009-10. 4. The Asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 70 lakhs to the disclosed income. 5. The short question that arose was whether the sum of ₹ 70 lakhs formed part of the surrendered amount of ₹ 247.19 lakhs? The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] disagreed with the Assessee and by order dated 29th February 2012 dismissed the appeal. The Assessee then appealed to the ITAT. 6. What is significant is that in the proceedings before the ITAT there is a discussion of a cash flow chart prepared by the Assessee from its b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version