This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws
S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Income from undisclosed sources-Partner in firms carrying construction projects-Entries in Diary seized during search-Cash received and paid-Undisclosed income was disclosed by partners-Deletion of addition is affirmed
Dy. CIT v. Alpeshkumar Rasiklal Lakhani (2024)110 ITR 53 (Trib) (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)
S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Cash Credits-unexplained advances-Cash and stock discrepancies-Survey-Retraction-Senior Citizen-Retraction is valid-Shortage of stock-Gross profit rate of 8.02 Per Cent-Statement recorded under Section 131 has no evidentiary value in absence of corroborative evidence-Assessment of disclosed income is invalid-Diary found during survey-Entries giving names and amounts without other details-No inquiry made to establish genuineness of transactions-Addition is not justified-Excess cash found during survey-Addition is affirmed. [S.131, 133A]
Lachhman Dass Bansal v. Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 439 (Chad)(Trib)
S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Unexplained money-Survey-Deeming provision-Statement in the course of survey-Bald allegation of Assessing Officer is not sufficient to consider income declared as unexplained investment-Income offered in the course of survey cannot be assessed as unexplained and has to be assessed as business income. [S. 69A, 115BBE, 133A]
Krishan Kumar v. Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 476 (Chd)(Trib)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained expenditure-Share application money-Information from Investigation wing-Accommodation entries-Transactions through banking channels and companies having sufficient financial reserves to provide credits-Burden discharged. [S.69C, 131, 133(6)]
Vedic Foundation P. Ltd. v ITO (2024)110 ITR 17 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained money-Withdrawals in cash and utilisation towards deposits-No defect in cash flow statement-Addition is deleted.[S.69]
Rakesh Sharma v. ITO (2024) 110 ITR 368 (SMC) (Jaipur)(Trib)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Unsecured loans-Filed copies of income-tax return acknowledgments, master-data of lenders, audited financial statements, memorandum and articles of association, copies of bank statements, loan confirmations and ledgers showing receipt and refund of loans with tax deducted at source-Burden discharged-Addition is deleted. [S.133(6)]
IRIS Clothings Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 266 (Kol)(Trib)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained investments-Long-term Capital gains-Penny stock-Kappac Pharma-Suspected scrip-Scrip discredited by investigation report and Stock Exchange Boards-No material to contrary brought on record-Addition made on presumptions and human probabilities-Addition is deleted-Allowed exemption. [S. 10(38) 45, 69C]
Farzad Sheriar Jehani v. ITO (2024) 110 ITR 298 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Accommodation entries-Share capital, share premium and unsecured loan-Earning commission income a 20 Paise Per Rs. 100-Credit and debit entries in the bank account-Addition is deleted.
Bhavesh Commotrade P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 180 /231 TTJ 641 (Ranchi)(Trib); ACIT v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal (2024) 110 ITR 180 //231 TTJ 641 (Ranchi)(Trib)
S. 55A : Capital gains-Reference to Valuation Officer-Computation-Cost of acquisition-Value as on 1-4-1981-Reference To Valuation Officer-Amendment With Effect From 1-7-2012-Substitution of words is at variance with its fair market value for is less than its fair market value-Reference can be made to Departmental valuation Officer only where value shown by assessee is less than fair market value-Declaring value as on 1-4-1981 at figure higher than value determined by Departmental Valuation Officer-Value adopted by Departmental Valuation Officer could not be taken for computing fair market value.[S.45,55A(a)]
Nirmala Venkatapathy (Smt.) v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 27 (SN) (Chennnai)(Trib)
S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Not fulfilling conditions-Denial of deduction is not proper. [S. 45]
Mohan Lal Jain v. ACIT (2024)110 ITR 60(SN)) (Delhi) (Trib.)