|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 173317 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 1026
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- After deselection of compnaies as functionally dissimilar, we are of the view that ALP as computed by the TPO in the present facts and circumstances of the case is fair and reasonable to the extent of 11 comparables except M/s Ashoka Highways (Durg) Ltd. who has operating margin of 38% from toll operation business.
Accordingly, we direct the AO to exclude the company M/s Ashoka Highways (Durg) Ltd. from the list of comparables and recompute the adjustment to be made in specified domestic transaction based on the average PLI for remaining 11 comparables as taken by the TPO.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1025
Addition in respect of let out property - whether in the case of let out property if the actual rent received is less than municipal rateable value then the rental value should be adopted as ALV? - CIT(A) directing to adopt the Municipal rateable value for computation of ALV - HELD THAT:- Issue is squarely covered by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench for A.Y.2011-12 [2021 (9) TMI 597 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held that the actual rent received by the assessee in respect of let out property to some other tenant in subsequent assessment year cannot be used as a fair rental value for an earlier assessment year in respect of property that is let out to different tenant. While that has been held for a let out property, the same principle would indeed be applicable for vacant property also. We have also held in ground No.2 of the Revenue hereinabove that in such a scenario, municipal value should be adopted with the actual rent and higher of those two should be considered as the annual value. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has also directed the ld. AO to consider only the municipal value as the annual value in respect of vacant properties, on which finding, we do not find any infirmity.
Taxability of transfer fee - As in view of the fact that as on date, the issue in dispute before us is already decided in the case of ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society Ltd [2018 (3) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT] to hold that the receipt on account of transfer fee / amenities fee cannot be brought to tax as income of the assessee.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1024
Unexplained cash deposits u/s 69 - stand of the assessee that he is an agriculturist and he did not have any taxable income except exempt agriculture income and therefore he was not required to file his income tax return - Regarding cash deposit it is submitted that assessee had cash withdrawal and the payment was deposited against cash withdrawal. It is also submitted that assessee’s wife and his father had received huge amount compensation on acquisition of their agricultural land which was exempt from income-tax, out of which assessee’s wife had kept few cash with him and assessee’s father had given cash which was deposited by the assessee in his bank account from time to time and support, the assessee has filed copies of bank account of self, wife and his father
HELD THAT:- No material to the contrary has been brought on record by the authorities below. Therefore, considering the totality of facts of the present case, assessee has successfully proved the source of cash deposit in his bank account. Accordingly, assessment order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act is quashed. Grounds of appeal are allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1023
Addition u/s 69A - cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetisation period - HELD THAT:- The case of the assessee is that he is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Electronic Voucher Distribution (EVD) for Tata Sky TV Setup Box Recharge and has been making cash sales. This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue that the cash receipts had also made cash sales.
From the record it is transpired that the lower authorities have proceeded on the basis of mere suspicion which should not be the basis for addition in dispute. It is also pointed out that no discrepancy was found by the AO related to books of account. Under these facts the impugned addition cannot be sustained. Thus, hold accordingly. The AO is directed to delete the addition. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1000
Order u/s 127 (2) proposing to transfer the petitioner's assessment case from Mumbai to Indore - HELD THAT:- In any event, the court was not apprised of the orders/approvals, and as a routine, the petitioner went on obtaining an extension of the interim reliefs. Even an attempt on the part of petitioner to get the petition disposed of as infructuous leaves a lot to be desired. All this prima facie suggests that the court proceedings were used or abused to compromise the Revenue’s interests.
Now that respondents have abandoned the impugned order transferring the proceedings from Mumbai to Indore and substituted the same by transferring the proceedings from one Circle to the other in Mumbai, there is nothing much we can do in this petition.
But we would be failing in our duty if we do not bring these developments to the notice of the higher authorities, i.e., the CBDT and Ministry of Finance, so that such developments are probed deeply. At least prima facie, all these orders made during the pendency of this petition and without apprising the Court of such developments suggest that there is something more than what meets the eye. This Court’s orders and the Court proceedings were prima facie sought to be misused, and even the Court was kept in the dark about all these developments.
The assessment orders now made by the Mumbai Assessing Authorities practically accept everything submitted by the petitioner. There is no explanation of whether any powers of review are vested in the officials for re-transferring the matters in the way they have been re-transferred.
Accordingly, we direct the CBDT and Ministry of Finance to take cognizance of this matter and its proceedings, make at least a preliminary enquiry as to the developments in this matter, and decide whether any action is necessary against the officials involved. Needless to add the principles of natural justice and regular prescribed procedures must be followed, and full opportunity must be granted to the officials involved.
Though we are disposing of this petition given the order dated 20 February 2025 made by PCIT Mumbai-4, we direct the Chairperson of CBDT to file the compliance report in this Court by 27 June 2025. Ultimately, the CBDT and Tax officials must realize that they are dealing with public funds, and just as this court is always anxious to see that honest tax payers are not hassled, we think that we would be failing in our duty if we do not flag issues which prima facie suggest that the interests of the revenue, which are equally important, are not being prima facie compromised by attempting to use or abuse Court proceedings.
-
2025 (4) TMI 999
Assessment order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144B - HELD THAT:- In the present case, personal hearing was offered to the petitioner, but the petitioner’s representatives could not avail of the same.
In the case of Oberoi Constructions Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2024 (11) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we discussed several precedents regarding the exhaustion of alternate remedies. They apply to the facts of the present case. This is not a fit case to deviate from the standard rule of exhaustion alternate remedies. All contentions now raised by the petitioner can be better adjudicated before the Appellate Authority, and no extraordinary circumstances have been made out to bypass statutory remedies and entertain this petition.
Accordingly, by adopting the reasoning in the above case, we decline to entertain this petition and dismiss the same. The petitioner will have the liberty to avail of the alternate remedy before the Appellate Authority. Besides, if the petitioner seeks any interim reliefs, we are sure that the appropriate authority will consider such an application in accordance with the law and dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible.
The observations in this order are only in the context of the non-exhaustion of alternate remedies. Therefore, the Appellate Authority or the Authority entertaining the application for interim relief need not be influenced by such observations. The appellate Authority and other authorities taking up the application for interim relief are left free to decide all parties' contentions on merits.
-
2025 (4) TMI 998
Applicability of first proviso to Section 2(15) - Whether activities of the assessee society are commercial in nature? - HELD THAT:- Two authorities have concurrently held that the assessee RDA is engaged in preparation of development plan and selling of houses which falls within the advancement of any other object of general public utility in accordance with the Act of 1973 and there is no material on record that it involves the business of carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business and the Assessing Officer without there being any material available on record only recorded a finding while course of assessment that it has received rent, premium, interest, etc. and straightway proceeded to hold that first proviso to Section 2 (15) of the IT Act would attract without recording any specific finding that the respondent/assessee Authority is involved in carrying out of the activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, which the appellate authority CIT (Appeals) has corrected by holding that the respondent/ assessee Authority is not carrying out any operations on commercial lines with a motive to earn profit and which the ITAT has rightly affirmed and further held that the assessee’s predominant object is charitable and the Government has complete power to control and dissolve the assessee Authority and also that the first proviso to Section 2 (15) would not be attracted.
The finding recorded by the two authorities that the object of the assessee Authority is statutory and is not carrying out any operation on commercial lines with a motive to earn profit and there is no material in this regard that the assessee Authority is involved in commercial lines with a motive to earn profit, is the correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record.
ITAT is absolutely justified in affirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) holding that the first proviso to Section 2 (15) of the IT Act would not be applicable in the case of the respondent herein/assessee Authority in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board’s case [2007 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]. As such, the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2025 (4) TMI 997
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - limitation period prescribed u/s 149(1)(a) - HELD THAT:- The purpose for sharing the information, which is construed as suggestive of the assessee’s income escaping assessment is to enable the assessee to respond to the same and, for the AO to take an informed decision on the basis of the record including the assessee’s response. Thus, the question as to the value of income that may have escaped assessment is required to be determined by the AO at the stage of passing of an order u/s 148A (d) and not at the stage of sharing the information with the Assessee in terms of Section 148A (b) of the Act.
In the present case, there can be no dispute that even if the transaction of sale and purchase of equity shares of PMC Fincorp Ltd. is held to be bogus, the only amount that could be brought under the net of tax is the sum. This is the only amount received by the Assessee from his broker on account of the said transaction and the AO has no information which suggests otherwise.
Undisputedly, the Assessee has surrendered the said amount to tax as he had claimed the same as short term capital gains.
In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable on both the grounds –
(i) the impugned notice is beyond the period of three years as stipulated under Section 149 (1) and,
(ii) that there is no material to indicate that the Assessee’s income has escaped assessment as the petitioner has declared the amount as received, chargeable to tax and has also paid the tax on the said amount.
The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned notice is set aside.
-
2025 (4) TMI 996
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - no valid approval granted by the competent authority u/s 151(1) - HELD THAT:- The fact of the assessee filing the return and that it was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act has not at all been taken cognizance of by the ld. AO and he merely relied whatever information reached the Investigation Wing and how it was examined. It appears that the AO has merely reproduced the facts coming up from the Investigation Wing and added his remark of escapement of income.
It is coming up from the reopening reasons that the ITO (Inv.) had called for all the relevant information with regard to credit and debit entries in the bank accounts which were filed before the ITO (Inv.). However, not a word of the same has been examined by the ld. AO to show as to if this information has been part of the assessee’s return.
The aforesaid also established that authority granting the approval has also not entered into the facts of the case by application of mind. The non application of mind to information to record a live link of information with the escapement of income thus not being there the reasons for reopening suffer fatal defect and thus we are inclined to allow this ground no. 2. The appeal is allowed
-
2025 (4) TMI 995
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition towards cash deposit u/sec.69A - appeal filled against the order passed by the AO u/sec.154 levying tax @ 60% u/sec.115BBE - HELD THAT:- In the present case, even though, the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 is pending for adjudication, the learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.154 of the Act without taking cognizance of the appeal filed by the assessee u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.
Therefore, this issue needs to be go back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue simultaneously along with appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 or after deciding the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (4) TMI 994
Addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE - higher rate of tax, i.e., 60%, as provided under the amended provisions of section 115- BBE - Scope of amended provisions of section 115BBE - applicable provision of law prevailing during the year under consideration - CIT(A) held that the amended provisions of section 115-BBE are applicable from the assessment year 2018-19, and therefore, the rate of tax at 60% is not applicable to the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is no longer res integra and has been decided in favour of the Revenue by various decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal following the decision of Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav [2021 (1) TMI 481 - KERALA HIGH COURT] We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Spectra Equipment (P.) Ltd. [2025 (1) TMI 1110 - ITAT HYDERABAD] following the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court cited supra and Chandan Garments (P.) Ltd. [2023 (7) TMI 973 - ITAT INDORE] held that the higher rate of tax prescribed in section 115-BBE of the Act is applicable to the assessment year 2017-18.
Thus, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the higher rate of tax, i.e., 60%, as provided under the amended provisions of section 115- BBE of the Act is not applicable to the year under consideration. Accordingly, to this extent, the impugned order is set aside, and the assessment order levying the tax at the rate of 60% under section 115-BBE on the income added under section 68 of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 993
Abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period - HELD THAT:- When the assessee has explained the reasons for increase in sales for the month of November, 2016 and further, it is not even the case of the AO that the product dealt by the assessee is having sales throughout the year, the reasons given by the AO to disbelieve the claim of the assessee for source for cash deposit cannot be appreciated.
AO has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of his own assumption of cash sales prior to demonetization period and during demonetization period without appreciating the fact that the sales are never predictable and just because the sales are high in the period of demonetization, AO cannot assume that such sales were fictitious sales and more particularly, when the assessee has submitted relevant sale bills in respect of sales.
Since the assessee is having sufficient cash in hand as on 08.11.2016, as per the cash book maintained for the period, in our considered view, the explanation of assessee with regard to source for cash deposit into bank account during demonetization period ought to have been accepted by the AO. CIT(A), without considering the relevant facts, simply sustained the additions made by the AO towards cash deposit as unexplained cash credits u/sec.68.
Thus, we direct the AO to delete the additions made towards cash deposit u/sec.68 - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 992
Charging of tax at higher rate - assessee submitted that the assessee had opted for the tax regime u/s 115BAA as per return filed by it, therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the CPC to compute the tax rate at 30% on account of non filing of Form 10-IC which is only a procedural requirement - HELD THAT:- We have also considered various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to non furnishing of Form 10-IC, the CPC processed the return on 21.05.2024 by computing the tax at normal rate as against the lower rate computed by the assessee as per the provisions of section 115BAA of the Act.
We find the various other decisions relied the assessee also supports his case to the proposition that the assessee should be given an opportunity to upload Form 10-IC and the Revenue has to condone such delay and allow the assessee to opt for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act.
Respectfully following the decision in the case of Fastner Commodeal (P.) Ltd. [2025 (1) TMI 769 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], we restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to permit the assessee to file the report in Form 10-IC and consider as to what relief the assessee would be entitled to subject to the condition that the assessee fulfills all other requisite conditions as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (4) TMI 991
Addition on account of the provision of taxation while computing the book profit under section 115JB - HELD THAT:- Amount being the tax adjustment of earlier years, which was disallowed in earlier years while computing the income of the assessee, was not reduced in the year under consideration, thereby resulting in the double addition of the same amount. Therefore, we find merits in the submissions of the assessee that the amount being the tax adjustment for earlier years should be reduced from the current tax and only the balance amount being the net tax expenditure can be added under Explanation – 1 to section 115-JB of the Act.
We also do not find any merits in the addition of deferred tax charge by the learned CIT(A), and we are of the considered view that the same is also required to be reduced for computing total tax expenses for the year under consideration. Accordingly, we direct the AO to make an addition being the tax expenditure, under Explanation – 1 to Section 115-JB of the Act. Accordingly, Ground raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 990
Addition of accommodation entry of bogus billing - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Assessee furnished various evidence during the re-assessment proceedings to discharge its onus of establishing the genuineness of the payment made to M/s. Culminating Management Pvt. Ltd. However, as is evident from the perusal of the assessment order, the AO, without considering any of these evidences, made the impugned addition merely relying upon the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata. Further, we find that the AO also did not make any independent investigation or inquiry in respect of the transaction entered into by the assessee with M/s. Culminating Management Pvt. Ltd.
As evident from the record that the AO did not examine any of these aspects of the instant case and merely because M/s. Culminating Management Pvt. Ltd. had raised the invoice on the assessee for the market development services, made the addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis that the assessee has availed accommodation entry of bogus billing without also appreciating the fact that the said invoice was reimbursed, inclusive of charging of service tax, by M/s. Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd.
Since no material has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the material placed on record by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings to substantiate its claim of genuineness of transaction, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, the impugned order on merits is upheld, and the sole ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 989
Additions of order passed u/s 153A - Whether no incriminating material found and seized from the possession of the assessee and solely on the basis of the material found and statements recorded of third parties which are not related to the assessee as neither they were the directors nor employees of the assessee company? - HELD THAT:- Any information or entry found in any document seized pertaining / relating to a person other than the person searched from the searched premises as was referred u/s 153A of the Act was to be handed over by the investigation wing to the AO of such other person (searched) and then that AO of the searched person shall handover the same to the AO of the person not searched who thereafter was to proceed against such other non-person by issuing a notice u/s 153C of the Act and then to assess / re- assess income of such other not searched person.
The assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of an income-tax search conducted on the assessee, the impugned amount of undisclosed/unexplained income, allegedly based on some incriminating material in the shape of statement of third persons recorded elsewhere, could not be assessed in the said assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act but it could be considered for the purpose only and only in a separate assessment order by taking recourse to the mandatory and special non obstante provisions of the section 153C of the Act and then to pass a separate assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Had recourse to section 153C of the Act been adopted by the revenue, then it would be in accordance with the decision of Calcutta Knitwears [2014 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT]
Admittedly, no money, bullion, valuable article or thing or property which was not disclosed or would not be disclosed was found during the search carried out by the department in the case of the assessee. Under these circumstances, by respectfully following the decisions of Anand Jain, HUF [2021 (3) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we hold that no addition could be made in the assessment completed u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of statements of third party recorded during the search in their own case and the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee could only be utilized for making addition.
Thus, the additions made are hereby deleted. Appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 988
Restricting depreciation @80% only on assets of Rs. 1,63,70,847/- and @15% on the balance amount - Higher rate of depreciation on solar power generating systems - Classification of HR sections, structure for MBSL modules, cables, etc. - HELD THAT:- AO did not examine the full details of the items claimed by the assessee under the head ‘Renewable Energy Devices/Energy Saving Devices’ and did not give adequate reasons/finding for the treatment of depreciation made in the assessment order.
Assessee’s claim that the entire amount constitutes Solar Power Generating Systems requires factual verification vis-à-vis both with respect to capital goods added and as to whether the other expenses under the head custom duty, stamp duty, inverter, custom duty inverter, administrative and other expenses, consultancy charges, syndicate fee for term loan, tour & travelling expenses etc. as listed out in the Chart-2 as reproduced on page no.2 of the assessment order will also be part of the ‘Solar Power Generation Systems’ or not. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding this issue afresh as per law keeping in view of the above observation. Ground no.1, 2, 3 and 4 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes
-
2025 (4) TMI 987
Disallowance of repairs and maintenance on plant and machinery - assessee failed to produce the copy of high value bills and other details as desired - as contended before the CIT(A) that the expenditure on repairs and maintenance has been incurred for the purpose of business and ledger account etc. has been provided to substantiate the same - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) held that it cannot be established that the whole expenditure has been incurred towards repair and maintenance, however looking to the various details provided and as verified by AO, he deem it fit and proper to restrict the disallowance @10% of the total claim made. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance and the balance amount was allowed and directed to be deleted. CIT(A) has rightly restricted the addition @10%, which does not need any interference, on our part, hence, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee.
Disallowance of royalty expenses, treating 25% of the same as capital expenditure and depreciation has been allowed on the same - HELD THAT:- In the assessee’s case after termination of agreement there is no benefit is available for recording. Hence, the royalty paid cannot be said to be capital in nature and same deserve to be treated as revenue in nature and allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. It is also noted that the acceptance of the royalty payments as revenue expenditure in earlier subsequent years i.e. AY 2010-11 and AY 2012-13 indicates that the Revenue has accepted u/s. 143(3) of the Act the nature of royalty payments as revenue in nature and it is well settled law that res-judicata does not apply to the income tax proceedings until there is change in the facts and circumstances and therefore, stand cannot be taken to disallow the expenditure as allowed in earlier proceedings.
To fortify our aforesaid view, we draw support from the decision of EKL Appliances ltd. [2012 (2) TMI 354 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein by relying on the decision in the case of Lumax Industries Ltd. [2008 (3) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the payment of licenses fee on year to year basis for acquisition of technical knowledge would not amount to capital expenditure it is revenue expenditure.
Thus, we hold the royalty payment in the instant case deserves to be held as revenue in nature and therefore, the royalty payment in dispute is allowable u/s. 37. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (4) TMI 986
Disallowance of Lease Equalization Reserve - whether the difference between the actual rent paid and the equated rent is allowable as expenditure? - HELD THAT:- There is no bar in claiming the actual rent in the Profit & Loss account but the assessee, following the principle of consistency and Accounting Standard-19, has claimed the same rent as expenditure for the entire period of lease spanning over more than one year. The quantum of increase in the rent as per the lease agreement has been claimed separately under the head ‘rent/lease equalization reserve’ in the computation of the income.
This method of accounting is being followed consistently over the years and the Revenue is accepting it in some preceding and subsequent years. In principle, the same has to be allowed as business expenditure irrespective of nomenclature under which such expenditure is put into. The said head ‘lease/rent equalization reserve’ is not the contingent liability and a reserve. We are of the considered view that the said disallowance of Lease Equalization Reserve made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not genuine. Hence, the same is deleted.
Disallowance of bad debts written off u/s 36(2) - The said claim as bad debts is nothing but the business loss allowable u/s 37. We are of the considered view that the said disallowance of Lease Equalization Reserve made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not genuine. Hence, the same is deleted.
-
2025 (4) TMI 985
Rectification u/s 154 - Mistakes apparent from the original assessment order - Deduction u/s 80IA in respect of seven units transferred after 01.10.2009 from the demerged company - HELD THAT:- We can conclude that the issue of allowability of the deduction u/s 80IA(12A) is not an issue which could be considered a case of prima facie mistake apparent from the records. The issue under consideration was examined by the CIT(A) in appeal to the extent of partial disallowance due to reallocation of head office expenses.
CIT(A) having co-terminus powers of the Assessing officer and also having powers of enhancement, however, did not consider it appropriate to modify the claim of the assessee in any other manner or for that matter invoking the provisions of above sub-section which was very much open even before him having partly considered it. Moreover, the detailed discussion and analysis in the case of Ultratech [2023 (2) TMI 916 - ITAT MUMBAI] in itself makes it evidently clear that the issue could not be decided by invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act. We dismiss the grounds of appeal in this regard.
Deduction u/s 80IA in respect of TPP - AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 80IA(2A) for withdrawing the claim of the assessee even on merits. The provisions of rectification u/s 154 of the Act, in any case could not have been applied on the facts and the circumstances of the case. Therefore, both on legal grounds and merits of the case, we do not find any substance in the grounds of the Revenue which are accordingly dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
