9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal, Rajkot Bench ["Tribunal" for short] dated 31st August 2012, these Tax Appeals have been preferred by the Revenue. As all of them involve identical question of law and arise out of similar facts, they are being decided by this common order. For the purpose of understanding controversy, the facts arising in Tax Appeal No. 233 of 2013 are taken into account. Search operation was carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds cancellation of the deal was held to be the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, CIT [A] was approached. CIT [A] was of the opinion that there was no corroborative evidence to justify such addition and in the statement of Vikas Shah, it was not emerging that the assessee was paid such amount by way of brokerage. This deletion on the part of CIT [A] aggrieved the Revenue and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also examined the orders of the authorities with his assistance. As could be noticed from the decision of the Tribunal, it has extensively quoted the findings of the CIT [A] and concluded that the sole reliance for such addition on the statement of Vikas Shah was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that there is nothing to indicate; except the statement that the assessee had entered into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
