Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ms. Protean Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

2016 (7) TMI 573 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Rejection of review petition - disallow of expenditure - revision petition filed and prayed for a direction to set aside the order passed by the second respondent under Section 143(3) and to redo the assessment after verifying the details of the cheques, through which, payments have been made, bank statements and ledger copies, which came into possession of the petitioner after the assessment was completed - Held that:- On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the first respondent cal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n. - Thus in view, the reason assigned by the first respondent for rejecting the review petition is not tenable for the simple reason that the petitioner had initially accepted for disallowance, which cannot be a ground to put against the petitioner, since, subsequently i.e. 17.3.2014, the petitioner made a request to the Assessing Officer to consider other documents and allow deduction claimed as expenditure. - Writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and the first respon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The petitioner was assessed to income tax by the second respondent under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12. While completing the assessment by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2014, the second respondent had opined that the petitioner had agreed for the disallowance of the claim for deduction. 5. However, on the subsequent date i.e 17.3.2014, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent stating that during the hearing on 14.3.2014, the second respondent himself had raised a query pointing out the vouchers not produced and asked the petitioner to show cause as to why this expenditure should not be disallowed. In this regard, the petitioner stated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respondent disallowed the deduction to the extent of ₹ 63,88,614/- and raised a demand for ₹ 24,97,320/-. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the first respondent under Section 264 of the Act and prayed for a direction to set aside the order passed by the second respondent under Section 143(3) of the Act and to redo the assessment after verifying the details of the cheques, through which, payments have been made, bank statements and ledger copie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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