Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs M/S Assam Tea House on 28 September, 2010
b. CIT Vs Kailash Jewellery House [TA No. 613/2010] (Del HC)
"The Tribunal also observed that it is not in dispute that the sum of Rs
24,58,400/- was credited in the sale account and had been duly
included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return. It is in
these circumstances that the Tribunal observed that the cash sales
could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be
made once again in respect of the same. The findings of the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which are
10
ITA No.1420/Mum/2023
A.Y. 2017-18
Swarnasarita Jewellers
purely in the nature of the factual findings, do not require any
interference and, in any event, no substantial question of law arises for
our consideration."
Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai, Mumbai vs M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd , Mumbai. on 29 May, 2023
11. Following the above decisions, it is noted that similar view has
been expressed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of
DCIT Vs Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd [ITA No. 1035/Mum/2022] dated
29.05.2023. The relevant findings are noted to be as under:-
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs Vishal Export Overseas on 17 June, 2013
a. CIT Vs Vishal Export Overseas Ltd [TA No. 2471 of 2009]
(Guj HC)
"5. ...... The Tribunal however, upheld the deletion of Rs.70 lakhs
under section 68 of the Act observing that when the assessee had
already offered sales realisation and such income is accepted by the
Assessing Officer to be the income of the assessee, addition of the
same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would
tantamount to double taxation of the same income.
1