TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )-IV, Mumbai dated 01-04-2009 for assessment year 2005-06. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice by RPAD. There is no Vakalat filed in this case nor a petition for adjournment has been made. Under these circumstances, we dispose of this case exparte on merits, qua the assessee, after hearing the learned DR. 3. Heard Shri S.S.Rana, the learned CIT-DR along with S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 268 and Lovely Exports Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), and deleted the addition. 5. On a perusal of these decisions, we find that the CIT (Appeals) has not committed any error in his order. At para 1.4 and 1.5 he held as follows: 1.4 The appellant has relied upon the case of Devine Leasing Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 where the Hon ble Supreme Court of India at Para w held as under: 2. Can the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands of the company even from bogus shareholders unless an amendment is made in the Income Tax Act. The addition of R.15,00,000/- therefore, has to be deleted and the appellant must succeed in view of Court decisions. Ground no.1 is allowed. 6. We uphold these findings of the CIT(Appeals) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
