9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment by : Shri Tapas Kumar Dutta ORDER Hari Om Maratha, These cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue respectively, for assessment year 2000-01, are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Chennai, dated 29.1.2010. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a closely held company and was engaged in the business of dealing in shares. The name of the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,493 (vi) Electronic transfer charges 76,93,929 (vii) Office Maintenance 22,79,697 (viii) Disallowance u/s 14A 40,013 Total additions/disallowance 28,11,81,141 3. This action of the Assessing Officer was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), who has given part relief to the assessee. Now the assessee is further aggrieved. After taking regular grounds of appeal, an additional ground has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence was placed on the decision of Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Impsat P. Ltd vs ITO, 276 ITR (AT) 136. The Revenue has disputed this contention of the ld.AR. Originally, in the assessment order, the name of the assessee was mentioned as 'Tarachanthini Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai', but it was subsequently rectified as 'M/s Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd' instead of 'Tarachanth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal, (i) that since the company itself was dissolved and became extinct with effect from September 18/ 2001, it could not be considered to be a case of "discontinuance" of the business. Once it ceased to exist, there was no question of assessing it for income-tax. The conduct of the assessee in filing the return of income and participating in the proceedings for assessment did not confer jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
