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

2016 (8) TMI 962 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (8) TMI 962 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed against revenue - ITA 364/2016 - Dated:- 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Station on 22nd August 2008 in the case of 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m of ₹ 8 lakhs and proceeded to add ₹ 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 fl .....

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