New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 816 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2016 (9) TMI 816 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - TMI - Fresh evidences submitted ignored - contravention of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 - Held that:- It would appear from the observations made by the CIT(A) that the interim report furnished by the Assessing Officer did not contain any complaint that the assessee had relied upon any new material. - Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate appearing form the appellant, is unable to show that the assessee did, in fact, rely upon any fresh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by us. - In that view of the matter, the question is answered by holding that the order of the learned Tribunal is not erroneous on account of omission to consider any alleged violation of sub-rule (2) of rule 46A. - ITA 77 of 2009 - Dated:- 28-7-2016 - JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. Mr. C. S. Das, Adv. JUDGMENT The subject matter of challenge is a judgement and ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat fresh evidences submitted by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is in contravention of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 ? The question suggests that the assessee relied upon fresh evidence before the CIT(A). Before the learned Tribunal the revenue failed to identify the fresh evidence allegedly adduced by the assessee before the CIT(A). The ground of appeal before the learned Tribunal was amongst other as follows: Whether on the facts and in the 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

ommission allegedly paid by the assessee to the various parties. He further submitted that the payment of commission at the rate of 12.5% to Mr. Khalid J. Al Kubaisi was too high. The assessee failed to give details of the services rendered by the payees. He further submitted that M/s. Cosmos International did not have any other commission received except the receipt of commission from the assessee. The ld. D.R. submited that the ld. CIT(A| allowed the payment of the commission on the premises t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vidently, the submissions advanced on behalf of the revenue do not identify any new evidence allegedly adduced by the assessee before the CIT(A). Moreover, from the order of the CIT(A) it appears that he had forwarded the papers submitted by the assessee to the Assessing Officer asking the latter to identify if any fresh evidence was being relied upon by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in his report, did not give any answer to that question, which will be evident from the following observat .....

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