“Section 207(2)(a)”
The decision most relied on for Section 207(2)(a) is Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. DCIT (83 TTJ 427), cited in 29 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 207(2)(a)
The ITAT decision in Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. DCIT is authority for the proposition that no interference is called for in an impugned order when no contrary decision has been placed on record.
A person is considered to be 'holding' property for the purpose of capital gains tax if they possess it as an owner, lessee, mortgagee, or under an agreement for sale, not solely as the legal owner.
When an assessee is a co-owner of property, they cannot be treated indifferently, and it would be a travesty of justice to single out one co-owner for an enhanced assessment on the same property.
If an addition of undisclosed income is made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating material evidence, such a statement is not conclusive, and no addition can be made.
Best judgment assessment cannot be invoked to reject books of account if purchases and sales are vouched, opening stock is derived from previous year's closing stock, closing stock is not disputed, and the previous year's books of account were not found incorrect.
