Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Sky Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 10 (1) , Pune

2013 (5) TMI 918 - ITAT PUNE

ITA No. 1217/PN/2010 - Dated:- 24-5-2013 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Mr. Nikhil Pathak Respondent by : Mr. Hemant Kumar C. Luava ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - V, Pune dated 17.06.2010 which, in turn, has arisen from an order dated 14.09.2009 passed by the Assessing Officer, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9,150/- which was subject to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2007 whereby the total income was determined at ₹ 26,19,192/-. In the determination of the total income, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 8,92,790/- on account of certain sundry creditors. As per the Assessing Officer the following three creditors i.e. (a) M/s Mahavir Construction- ₹ 3,70,290/-, (b) M/s Ganesh Construction- ₹ 2,79,000/- and (c) Mr. Zamal Khan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the aforesaid addition. The CIT(A) has also sustained the penalty against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the learned Representative for the assessee pointed out that before the Assessing Officer, the appellant had submitted the bills raised by the three creditors and also the detail of work carried out by them and merely because the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished, the addition may be justified but the penalty under Section 271(1)(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

e Assessing Officer and admitted of having carried out the work for the assessee. The only discrepancy was that the quantum of work admitted did not correspond to the amount shown by the assessee as outstanding to the said creditor. The learned counsel pointed out that having regard to the parity of reasoning in the case of National Textiles vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj.), no penalty is leviable on additions made in terms of the deeming Sections, for the instance, Section 68 of the Act in 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

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version