Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)
Acit., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs R.K.Infracorp Private Limited, ... on 25 February, 2026 cites

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2018

43. We have given thoughtful consideration to the observations of the CIT(A) based on which he had vacated the addition of Rs. 1286.23 lakhs (supra) relating to the aforementioned 8 entries. In our view, as the AO had in his second "remand report" admitted that the 8 entries mentioning the nick name of the Director of the assessee company and his brother could not be found in the Tally Data and the books of accounts of the assessee company, therefore, as observed by the CIT(A), and rightly so, there could not have been any justification for the AO after conceding to the aforesaid factual position to have sustained the addition with respect to the aforementioned 8 entries. Also, we concur with the CIT(A) that as the AO had conceded in his "remand report" that the entries bearing nick 37 ITA No.235 & 363/Hyd/2025 R.K. INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED names of the Director of the assessee company and his brother could not be traced in the Tally Data/books of account of the assessee company, therefore, it is nothing short of admission by the AO that no corresponding bogus expenses were booked by the assessee company during the year under consideration. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are persuaded to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT(A) that as the AO had no evidence before him which could reveal that the assessee company had booked any bogus expenditure during the year under consideration, therefore, there was no justification for him to make any addition/disallowance based on the unsubstantiated entries in the seized loose sheets, viz., Annexure A-1/Pages 01-02. Our aforesaid view is supported by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC), wherein it is held that loose sheets and random notings without corroborative evidence lack evidentiary value.
Supreme Court of India Cites 130 - Cited by 396 - D Misra - Full Document

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996

As the assessee company, by raising the aforesaid additional ground of appeal, has sought our indulgence for adjudicating a legal issue, which 4 ITA No.235 & 363/Hyd/2025 R.K. INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED requires looking no further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 1462 - Full Document

Messrs. Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 14 May, 1959

Our 29 ITA No.235 & 363/Hyd/2025 R.K. INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED aforesaid view is supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) and Umacharan Shaw & Bros. Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, are of a firm conviction that as both the lower authorities had merely acted upon the noting/scribbling in the seized loose sheet, and had failed to bring any material on record which would conclusively reveal that the assessee company had booked bogus expenses towards the purchase of fuel from the aforesaid party and had received the amount as mentioned in the noting/scribbling in the seized loose sheet, therefore, are unable to concur with the CIT(A) who had upheld the impugned unsubstantiated addition made by the AO only for the reason that there was a similarity in the names of the parties mentioned in the seized loose sheet and the tally data and the assessee company prior to the date mentioned in the seized loose sheet had made a payment to the aforesaid party on 02.04.2019 and, thus, set aside his order and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 20 lacs. The Ground of appeal No. 2 raised by the assessee company is allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 371 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax , Central ... vs Uppala Pradeep Kumar , Hyderabad on 3 March, 2021

48. Coming to the facts of the present case, we find that it is the claim of the revenue that they had during the course of the search proceedings conducted on the assessee company seized certain loose sheets, viz., Annexure A-1/Pages 01-02, which revealed that certain expenses that 40 ITA No.235 & 363/Hyd/2025 R.K. INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED were debited by the assessee company and claimed as a deduction either during the year under consideration or in the immediately preceding year were received back in cash from the concerned parties. However, we concur with the CIT(A) that as during the course of the search proceedings, no corroborative evidence based on the notings of the seized loose sheets, viz. Annexure A-1/Pages 01-02 was found which would reveal that the assessee company was the owner of any unaccounted cash, unaccounted jewellery, unaccounted assets etc., therefore, the basic pre-condition for invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act, i.e., ownership of money or bullion, jewellery or valuable articles, not recorded in the books of recorded in the books of accounts and failure to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the same is in itself not met out, as a result whereof the provisions of section 69A of the Act could not have been invoked by the AO. Our aforesaid view that the first condition for applying the provisions of Section 69A is that the assessee should be found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and, secondly, the same should not be found recorded in the books of account of the assessee, if any, maintained by him is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT Vs. Ravi Kumar (2008) 168 Taxman 150 (P&H). In the case before them, the Hon'ble High Court 41 ITA No.235 & 363/Hyd/2025 R.K. INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED observed that based on the loose slips found in the course of he search proceedings from the assessee the addition was made under Section 69A of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the assessee before them was found in possession of loose slips and not of any valuable article or thing. Also, it was further observed that neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewellery mentioned in the slips could be proved. The High Court, based on the aforesaid facts, upheld the view taken by the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 69A of the Act could not have been applied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next