Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 July, 2021
In the ITAT Delhi bench 'C' Pavitra Realcon (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner
of Income-tax, Central Circle-32, New Delhi [2017] 87 taxmann.com 142 (Delhi
Trib.) it has been held that even if how strong is the presumption/assumption,
it could not be basis for any addition.
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Dcit, Circle-4,, Baroda vs Madhya Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd., Baroda on 18 August, 2023
IT(SSA No.45 and 50 /Ahd/2021
27
It is observed that while computing unaccounted sales referred supra and as
mentioned in statement recorded during the course of survey, Assessing
Officer has considered physical stock of 5299.03 Gms in respect of 18 CT gold
ornaments. Further on perusal of physical stock inventory prepared by
registered valuer as on the date of survey, there was stock of 1510.210 Gms
of 18 CT gold jewellery in addition to 5299.03 Gms but Authorised officer at
the time of survey has not considered such physical stock of 1510.210 Gms.
while arriving at the figure of shortage of stock and consequently working of
the unaccounted income and therefore, the same is required to be taken into
account for adjudicating this ground of appeal of the appellant. This
contention of the appellant is found correct factually and legally also in view
of the decision of Hon'ble Agra ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Maya Trading Co
34 Taxman.com 144 wherein it was held that "Where assessee was able to
show that admission made during survey by surrendering income on excess
stock was incorrect, on basis of seized material itself, addition was
unjustified". Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT VsDhingra Metal
Works 196 taxman 488 has held as under: