TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew, the CIT had no justification to decide the very same issue again u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed u/s 263 is bad in law and without jurisdiction. We, therefore, cancel the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee. - ITA No . 1507/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2014 - Shri N.S. Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Assessee(s) by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR Revenue by: Shri T.P. Krishnakumar, CIT-DR ORDER Shri N.S. Saini, This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Baroda dated 30.03.2011. 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT has erred in law and on f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. The AR of the assessee filed before us the order of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Md. Serajuddin Bros. v. CIT, reported in [2012] 24 taxmann.com 46 (Cal.), wherein the Hon ble High Court held that Chapter IV-D nowhere provides that method of accounting for purpose of ascertaining net profit should be only income from business alone and not from other sources. If income from other sources included in profit and loss accounts to ascertain the net profit qua book profit for computation of remuneration of partners, same cannot be discarded. Therefore, the AR contended that the CIT was not justified in sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, income of ₹ 20 lacs disclosed during the course of survey u/s 133A by the assessee is assessable as income from other sources and not business income and therefore, the remuneration allowable as per provisions of Section 40(b)(v) works out to ₹ 50,000/- only. We find from the impugned order of CIT dated 30.03.2011 passed u/s 263 of the Act that he observed as under:- 4. The appeal of the assessee for the AY under reference has been decided by the CIT(A). The CIT(Appeals)-II, Baroda in his order dated 21.10.2010 has rejected the contention of the appellant that the declaration of ₹ 20 lacs was in the nature of suppressed gross receipts from construction business and upheld the contention of the Assessing Officer tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
