9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the estimated addition of Rs. 2,96,75,198/- @10% of contract receipt), as against estimated addition made by the A.O of Rs. 4,45,l2,797/- @15% of contract receipt), without considering the nature of business and with any comparable cases in the similar line of business of contracts. Therefore, addition may please be deleted. Therefore, estimated addition sustained at Rs. 1,45,64,777/-(2,96,75,198 (-)1,51,10,421) by CIT(A) may please be deleted. [2] On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, if the estimated addition as per appellate order of CIT(A) is considered, then Net Profit would be at Rs. 6,46, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the incriminating material impounded during the course of survey action u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and various defects pointed out during the assessment proceedings. 3. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred' in ignoring the fact that the assessee himself has requested to finalize the assessment invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and that of the A.O be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete, amend any o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it @ 9% of the total contract receipt. In the present cross appeals the same issue has been agitated by both the sides by raising similar grounds. The ld. AR furnished the copy of Tribunal order dated 22-09-2017 (supra) in assessee's own case in earlier assessment years. 5. Shri Mukesh Jha representing the Department vehemently supported the assessment order. However, the ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue raised by the Revenue and assessee in present set of appeals is similar to the one decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. 6. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
