Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shri Amitkumar Hasmukhbhai Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 199/Ahd/2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 19/06/2015
Related Assessment Year : 2006-2007
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Brief Facts of the Case

The assessee is engaged in carrying on transport business in the name of M/s.Chandan Carrier. On enquiry, the AO found that Shri Nilesh Shah, owner of the M/s Nilesh Shah, did not own any truck for its transportation business. The business premise of Shri Nilesh Shah was owned by Shri Hasmukh M. Shah, father of the assessee, for which no rent was paid by M/s. Chandan Carrier.

Further inquiry from HDFC Bank revealed that the assessee was the authorized signatory, power of attorney holder and mandate holder in the case of M/s. Chandan Carrier. The business activity of M/s.Chandan Carrier was limited to movement of truck/tankers owned by the assessee. Therefore, the AO held that the assessee has adopted colourful device to avoid taxes by diverting the income in the name of other party. The AO observed that during the year, Shri Nilesh J. Shah has shown income amounting to Rs.1,07,890/- and the same was added to the total income of the assessee.

Question of Law

Whether any separate addition can be made to the income once return is filed and income is assessed under section 44AE?

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031