SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 17

S.H.KAPADIA, B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Commissioner of Income Central II – Appellant
Versus
Suresh N. Gupta – Respondent


KAPADIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether the AO had erred in imposing surcharge at 17% on the tax amount of Rs. 97,456/- under Section 113 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ( 1961 Act ) for the block period comprising of previous years relevant to 10 assessment years, i.e., 1991-92 to 2000-01, including the period from 1.4.2000 to 17.1.2001. FACTS

2. On 17.1.2001 a search under Section 132 of the 1961 Act was carried out at the premises of the respondent-assessee, an individual. The search unearthed an unexplained investment of Rs. 65,000/- being the value of household valuables and Rs. 97,427/- on account of unexplained marriage expenses (undisclosed income). Accordingly, in the block assessment, the A.O. determined the assessee s undisclosed income at Rs. 1,62,427/-. He computed tax thereon at 60% in terms of Section 113 of the 1961 Act amounting to Rs. 97,456/- on which surcharge was levied at 17%, i.e., Rs.16,504/-. The levy of surcharge was challenged by the assessee in appeal before the CIT(A). The said appeal was allowed. The decision of CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal and the High Court. Hence, this civil appeal.
























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top