Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (5) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Addition made u/s. 68 - Held that:- The assessee has purchased goods worth ₹ 24.23 lakhs from M/s Ascent enterprises and has made a payment of ₹ 12.24 lakhs leaving a balance of ₹ 11.99 lakhs as the amount due to M/s Ascent Enterprises. This outstanding balance alone has been assessed as unexplained credit by the AO and the same has been confirmed by the Ld CIT(A). The reasoning given by the Ld CIT(A) to confirm this addition is that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ases. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete this addition. - Decided in favour of assessee - Addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) - retrospectivity - Held that:- We set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the same afresh in the light of decision in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P Ltd [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and the newly inserted proviso to sec. 40( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he decision of learned CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act and also confirming the addition made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading of classes, M.S. Materials, aluminium sheets etc. 4. The first issue relates to the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to three Sundry c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he addition relating to Theme Inc. In respect of balance outstanding in the name of Ascent Enterprises, learned CIT(A) confirmed the same, since the its name appeared in the list of hawala operators prepared by the Sales Tax Department. 5. Before us, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has sold the goods and the same is not possible without making corresponding purchases. He further submitted that the assessee has purchased goods from M/s Ascent Enterprises to the tune of ₹ 24,23,285/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

further enquiries, is not sustainable:- (a) DCIT Vs. Shri Rajeev G Kalathil (ITA No.6727/Mum/2012 dated 20- 08-14) (b) Shri Ganpatraj A Samghavi Vs. ACIT (ITA No.2826/Mum/2013 dated 5.11.2014) (c) DCIT Vs. M/s Aspee Agro Equipment P Ltd (ITA No.4065/Mum/2014 dated 1.1.2016) (d) ITO Vs. Shri Rajkumar Agarwal (ITA No.5233/Mum/2013 dated 10.4.2015) (e) Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.2959/Mum/2014 dated 28.11.2014) 6. On the contrary, the Ld D.R strongly supported the order passed by Ld CI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version