| Case ID |
1f33edf5-d720-4cca-a8c3-840165edab93 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 30, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 30, 2001 |
| Decision |
The court upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax, stating that the assessment of 'on money' under 'Income from other sources' in the assessment year 1995-96 had no relevance to the assessment for 1996-97, where the focus was on capital gains from the sale of the project. The court affirmed that the Commissioner had provided ample opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence for their claims, which were ultimately found to be unsupported. The dismissal of the revision petitions was justified due to the lack of evidence proving cash payments had been made, leading to the conclusion that the claims made by the petitioner were fictitious. The court also clarified that there was no double taxation involved, as the sources of income were distinct in both assessment years. |
| Summary |
In the matter of Vijendra Manjunath Shenai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Bombay High Court addressed the revision petitions filed under section 264 of the Income-tax Act concerning the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The case revolved around the admission of 'on money' received during a project sale, which was acknowledged by the petitioner during a search operation. The court examined whether the amount received as 'on money' could be considered in the computation of capital gains for the following assessment year. The court ruled that the Commissioner of Income-tax had made a well-reasoned decision, emphasizing the need for verifiable evidence to support claims of refunds to original investors. The ruling established clear distinctions between income from undisclosed sources and capital gains, thus preventing double taxation. This case highlights the significance of maintaining accurate records and evidence to substantiate financial claims in tax assessments, a critical aspect for tax professionals and entities involved in real estate transactions. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
B.P.L. Ltd.
|
| Judges |
V.C. Daga,
J.P. Devadhar
|
| Lawyers |
P.P. Pandit,
P.S. Jetly,
R.V. Desai,
B.M. Chatterjee,
H.D. Rathod
|
| Petitioners |
Vijendra Manjunath Shenai
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 3498,
(2003) 260 ITR 176
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
264,
132(4),
271(1)(c),
234B
|