9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and the Revenue respectively, arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli dated 20.11.2012 passed in ITA No.305/2010- 2011, for assessment year 2008-2009, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short the "Act"]. 2. In the course of hearing, the assessee in ITA No.175/Mds/2013 strongly argues that CIT(A) has wrongly confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai 'tribunal' in ITA No.662/Mds/2010, dated 07.01.2011, (its own case for assessment year 2006-2007). We have heard both parties, perused the case files as well the decision of the 'tribunal' quoted herein above. 5. The assessee is a company, engaged in the business of fabrication work. For the impugned assessment year, it had filed its 'return' on 15.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e due date of filing of 'return'. Accordingly, he placed reliance on the case of CIT Vs Alum Extrusions Limited 319 ITR 306 ), holding therein that in the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40A(ia) should be read with retrospective effect. In this manner, the CIT(A) has deleted all additions by issuing necessary directions to the Assessing Officer except F 88,410/- and F 1,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assesse is that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have wrongly added an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the total claim of Rs.1,68,897/- as general expenses. We notice from the assessment order as well as the CIT(A)'s order that for the balance amount of Rs.68,897/- there was no objection made. In other words, genuineness of the expenses has not been doubted by the lower authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
