MILLENNIUM REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(Appeals) adequately considered the nature of the surrendered income and its potential connection to business activities. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
Following a search operation, the assessee surrendered Rs. 1.10 Crore as additional income for AY 2012-13, which was introduced as cash in its books. The Assessing Officer treated this as deemed income under Section 69A, disallowing set-off of business loss.
What were the issues?
Whether the surrendered income, introduced as cash, constitutes deemed income under Section 69A or income from business, and whether business loss can be set off against it.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah80 citing299 ITR 305 · 2008 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel67 citing278 ITR 454 · 2005 · HC
- Kim Pharma (P) Ltd. v. CIT47 citing258 CTR 454 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana dated 04.10.2016 for Assessment Year: 2012-2013. 2 Millennium Real Estate Developers P. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the learned CIT (Appeals) Central Circle have erred both on facts and in law while passing his orders upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer treating the surrendered income of Rs.1.10 Crore as deemed income u/s 69 A of the Act; rather than income from Business or Profession, in view of the fac
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026