Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Bansal Strips (P) Ltd 99 ITD 177 Delhi
6. Harish Daulatram Innani v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(Inv), Cir.

11(1), Mumbai (2008] 24 SOT 541 (Mumbai)

7. K P Verghese v ITO 24 CTR 358 (SC)

8. P. R. Metrani vs. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 209 SC

9. CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Nooriahan 1999 237 ITR 570 (SC)

10. CBI Vs. V. C. Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3SCE 410 The gist submitted by the assessee of some of the cases is an under:-

1. Bhajan Das & Bros v. ACIT (2009] 119 ITD 76 ITAT (THIRD MEMBER) (Agra) In a search conducted under section 132 at residences of partners of assessee-firm on 22-2-2003, certain papers were seized from residence of 'N' - Assessing Officer was of view that in those papers position of stock and capital, etc., had been written for purpose of distribution of assets amongst partners - Assessing Officer made an addition in assessees hands on basis of those documents - It was found that there was change in partnership on 1-4-2000 and 'N' was not a partner of assessee-firm from 1-4-2000 - It was also found that such documents had been written by 'B' who had committed suicide - Further, seized material contained some scribblings of figures which did not in any way lead to transactions of firm - Whether addition made to income of assessee under section 158BC in respect of papers seized from residence of 'N' could be supported in eyes of law - Held, no M/s Vyapar Industrial Ltd. 15 ITA Nos. 7159 & 7160/M/2019 2 M.M. FINANCIERS (P.) LTD. V. DCIT (2007] 17 SOT 5 ITAT (CHENNAI)(URO) Assessee-company was engaged in real estate business "KM' was its business associate - In search conducted at premises of 'KM', an unsigned MoU, reflecting transaction for purchase of 95 acres of land between assessee and 5 others as purchasers, on one hand, and 'KM' and 'KMR' firm, on other, for a consideration of Rs. 2,40,40,000 was found - At assessee's premises, 5 registered sale deeds were also found, as per which 'KMR had transferred 22 acres of land to nominees of assessee which in turn was reconveyed by assessee to nominees of 'KMR' vide agreement dated 1-1-1997 for a consideration of Rs. 1,15,52,148 - On verification, Assessing Officer found that assessee in its books of account had entered payment of Rs. 91 lakhs as against Rs. 2,40,40,000 admitted by 'KM' vide unsigned MoU and, therefore, he treated difference between these two amounts, i.e., Rs.1,49,40,000 as undisclosed income of assessee - Assessing Officer also found that for transfer of 22 acres of land, by another agreement dated 25-3-1997 assessee had received payment of ₹3,62,18,000 as against disclosed income of ₹1,15,52,148 and accordingly, he computed difference between these amounts and treated same as undisclosed short-term capital gain However, it was found that 'KM' in his sworn statement had recorded that agreement under which assessee had agreed to purchase land was not acted upon and transaction did not materialize; that later 'KM' had retracted his own statement during cross-examination; that Assessing Officer was not firm about consideration for sale of 22 acres of land that passed on to assessee - It was also found that Assessing Officer had not examined all parties to unsigned MoU and there was no evidence for payment of money to assessee by any party other than amount entered in books of account - Whether, on facts, it could be said that there was no valid seized material representing addition of Rs.