Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
M/S R.D. Palace Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs Dcit, Cc-1, Ludhiana on 12 July, 2019 cites

Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Shri Sandeep Chandak on 27 November, 2017

13. So far as the reliance of the Ld. DR on the decision in the case of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of 'Principal CIT Vs. Shri Sandeep Chandak' and Ors. (supra) is concerned, as discussed in the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in 'DCIT Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd, (supra) the facts in the case of Principal CIT Vs. Shri Sandeep Chandak' and Ors (supra) are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand in the light of the discussion made in the above referred to decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 57 - Full Document

Ajay Sharma vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 December, 2017

The co st of co nstruct io n in the projections pro jected at Rs.2177/- which is in synch with the statement given by the assessee. The AO was happy with the dis closu re given by the assessee and d id not verify th e fact ual posit ion wit h the books of acco unts and p rojection s an d bring the evidence to unearth the und isclo sed in come. Neither the A.O. no r the investigation win g linked the cost of p rof it or co st of asset to the entries in the books of accounts or to the sales cond ucted by the assessee to the sale dee ds. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the revenue that the loose sheet found dur ing the course of search in d icates any und isclosed in co me or asset or inflat ion of expendit ure. The Hon'b le ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ajay Sharma v. Dy. CIT [2013] 30 taxmann.com 109 held that with respect to ITA Nos. 1238 to 1242-c-2018- Veena Rani & Others, Ludhiana 18 record a s produ ced before us by the ld. DR that the valuation report is b ased on the market price of the gold Jewellery prevailing on the date of search as against the cost o r realizatio n wherever is less. Therefore, the computation of excess sto ck based on the market price of the stock cannot be cons idered as und isclo sed income of the assessee as it is the subject matter of regular as sessment and cannot be regarded as u nd isclosed in come based on in crimin at ing mater ial. There is no such fact either recorded d uring the sear ch an d seizur e proceeding or in the assessment order or in the penalty proceeding to show that the re was d iscrepancy in th e stock as re corded in the books of acco unt and fou nd at the time of search . In the absence of any d iscrepan cy in the qu ant ity of stock the valuation of the stock is purely a question of assessment and cannot be held as und isclosed income detected dur ing the course of search and se izure proceeding. Therefore, to the extent of excess stock based on the valuation report the disclosure of the in come by the assessee would not fall in t he category of undis closed in co me as per explanat io n to Section 271AAB of the Act. It is not the ca se of t he Revenue that any stock of jewellery was fou nd which is not recorded in the books of accou nt but the value of sto ck is computed based on the valuat ion report of the departmental valuer. Once the differen ce in the value of stock is o nly d ue to market price as ag ainst the cost of the said sto ck, the same will not fall in t he amb it of und isclo sed income as def ined un der clause-(c) of explan at ion -1 of section 271AAB of the Act .
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Dcit, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata, ... vs M/S. Rashmi Cement Ltd., , Kolkata on 28 February, 2019

13. So far as the reliance of the Ld. DR on the decision in the case of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of 'Principal CIT Vs. Shri Sandeep Chandak' and Ors. (supra) is concerned, as discussed in the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in 'DCIT Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd, (supra) the facts in the case of Principal CIT Vs. Shri Sandeep Chandak' and Ors (supra) are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand in the light of the discussion made in the above referred to decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 30 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1