News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 Aman Tandon 143, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle – 52 (1) New Delhi
 Nutan Chopra, 3, Ring Road, New Sbi,Lajpat Nagar-Iv,New Delhi Vs. Acit, Central Circle 54(1), New Delhi
 Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(3), New Delhi. Vs. Sh. Narender Singh A-458, Shastri Nagar, Delhi – 110 052
 M/s. Multitude Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, ECE House, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 17(1) New Delhi
 M/s. Global One India Pvt. Ltd., DSO 601-603, 607-608, 6th Floor, DLF South Court, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017 Vs. DCIT, Circle – 12(1), New Delhi
 The A.C.I.T. Central Circle – 26 New Delhi. Vs. M/s Mayfield Projects C – Block, Site Office Near Hanuman Mandir Mayfield Garden, Sector - 50 Gurgaon, Haryana
 The A.C.I.T Circle 12(2) New Delhi Vs. M/s International Hospital Ltd C/o Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, Okhla Road New Delhi
 For other GST and/ or Tax Audit Reports, whether separate UDIN is required for various annexures?
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Naraina
 Rolls-Royce Plc Vs. Deputy Director Of Income Tax
 Income Tax Officer Ward-17(2), New Delhi Vs. M/s MSS Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 10, 32-C, BR Complex, Near Una Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091

CIT vs. Rekha Bai (Supreme Court)
April, 14th 2017

S. 132: It is but natural that concealed income found at the time of search and survey has to be distributed among all the family members who were carrying on business. It is also a reasonable conclusion that the income had been earned over a period of time and should be spread over various years

(i) Less than 50% of the face value of the promotes should only be treated as the amounts advanced and consequently the undisclosed income of the assessee;

(ii) The concealed income has to be treated as belonging to various members of the assessee’s family and dividing the same between them instead of taxing the entire amount in the assessee’s hands;

(iii) The undisclosed income has to be spread over a period of five years.

On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court HELD dismissing the appeal:

The Department has failed to bring on record any material to the contrary except the seized documents which, in our considered opinion, could not absolve the Department or give any right to negate the view taken by the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. So far as the income divided among the family members of the assessee is concerned, we find that all of them were carrying on same business from the same premises. Therefore, it is but natural that if any concealed income has been found at the time of search and survey, it has to be distributed among all the family members who were carrying on business.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting