Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Sri.Thomas Eapen, Alappuzha vs The Ito, Wd-5, Alappuzha on 19 November, 2019

Sarita Gupta, Alwar vs Pcit(Central), Jaipur, Jaipur on 29 August, 2024

Similarly Hon'ble ITAT Cochin Bench in case of Thomas Eapen Vs. ITO (2020) 180 ITD 741 has held that assessee having offered his income to tax under sec. 44AD which has been accepted by the AO without raising any doubt regarding the gross receipts/turnover of the assessee, no addition under ss. 68 and 69A could be made on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. Following these decisions the Ld. PCIT dropped the proceedings u/s 263 in case of Hari Om Gupta vide order dt. 20.03.2024 (PB 42-44) and in case of Jyoti vide order dt. 15.03.2024 (PB 45-49). Thus when in similar other cases proceedings u/s 263 have been dropped, order passed in the case of assessee be quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Honey Rahulan, Alappuzha vs The Ito, Alappuzha on 9 June, 2020

7.3 Further, the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Thomas Eapen v. ITO (supra), while dealing the case of an assessee who has declared the income of 8% under section 44AD of the I.T.Act by relying on the above Chandigarh Bench order, has held as follows. - "Now, applying the above to the facts of the present case, we observe that the Assessing Officer, for making the impugned addition has stated that there was total deposit of Rs.94,04,685/- and the assessee has only explained Rs.66,10,379/- and Rs.27,94,306/-, being balance unexplained, which is a totally wrong premise. If the income component is estimated, how the expenditure component on the basis of said income can be considered to have been `actually incurred' and it is only presumption that an amount of 92% of gross receipts was incurred by the assessee as expenditure. We must also observe here that this is not a case, where the Assessing Officer has doubted the gross receipts or gross turnover of the assessee. In fact, accepting the same, estimating income @ 8% on the same at presumptive rate, he preferred to make further addition under section 68/69A of the Act. The argument of the learned DR that the turnover of the assessee has been doubted by the Assessing Officer is totally ill-found, in view of the same."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.Gupteswar Patra, Nabarangpur vs Principal Cit, Sambalpur on 6 April, 2022

11. Ld counsel also referred to the decision of ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Thomas Eapen vs ITO, (2020) 113 taxmann.com 268 (Coch), wherein, it was held that where the assessee, a small trader in medicines falling under section 44AD, offered income on presumptive taxation basis, provisions of section 69A could not be applied to make addition in respect of undisclosed cash credits found in assessee's bank account. The benefit of this is also available in favour of the assessee in the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next