9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act passed by PCIT-1, Ahmedabad is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the PCIT-1, Ahmedabad has erred in setting aside the assessment order dated 07.06.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that the Assessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings has already gone through issue regarding notional guarantee commission of Rs. 99,72,600/- and after satisfying himself with respect to the details submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and reduced the same from total income. The Ld.PCIT therefore issued notice u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessee replied the same notice and after taking cognizance of the same, the Ld.PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Assessment order after duly examining the issue observes therein. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed detailed reply along with the requisite documents before the Assessing Officer and the Notional corporate guarantee income of Rs. 99,72,600/- was also verified by the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 01.02.2020. The assessee has provided ledger account of the notional corporate guarantee in which detailed explanation was given by the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that the said income is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Apex court of India in the case of PCIT vs Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd. [2021] 130 taxamann.com 294. j. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT vs Kansara Popatlal Tribuvan Metal (P) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.co. 433. 5. The Ld.DR relied upon the order of the Ld.PCIT and further mentioned that the Assessing Officer has not taken the cognizance of the fact that the Assessing Officer should have made addition in respect of the Guarantee income which was declared by the assessee. The Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.PCIT has rightly held that the Assessing Officer failed to make addition in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this has resulted into loss of Revenue. The Ld.DR relied upon the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the Ld.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
