Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1544 - ITAT COCHINRevision u/s 263 of the Act made - Disallowance of expenses u/c 36(1)(ii) of the Act – Deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Act – Held that:- The decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Sunil Kumar Goel [2005 (1) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court] and in Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad, And Another Versus Hindumal Balmukund Investment Company Private Limited. And Others [2001 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court] followed - a speaking order must speak for itself and a reference to show cause notice is called for - It is also well settled principles of law that judicial order shall speak for itself and the reason for the conclusion reached in the judicial order shall contain in the order itself - Reason for a decision cannot be substituted or supplemented by way of an affidavit or otherwise - the assessing officer has not applied his mind to the claim made by the assessee towards payment of commission to managing director, whole time director and vice president (marketing) - application of mind does not reflect in the assessment order – there was no infirmity in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Administrative Commissioner - the assessing officer shall independently examine the claim made by the assessee towards commission to managing director, whole time director and vice president (marketing) without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Commissioner – Decided against Assessee.
|