9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 06/08/2013 passed by the ITAT Bench D Ahmedabad in ITA No.721/Ahd/2009 for AY 2005-06. 2. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that in the Tribunal order dated 06/08/2013(supra) errors have crept in which require rectification by way of recalling the said Tribunal order. He submitted that the Hon ble Tribunal in paragraph No.6 of its order recorded that Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas the Ld.AR of the assessee supported the order of ld.CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by Tribunal s order for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 and copy of which are also available on pages 105 to 108 have 109 to 110 respectfully of the paper-book. He further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich are interrelated. The entire case of the AO is that the payment is excessive and without any business prudence. The AO has not doubted the genuineness of payment. In view of these facts being same as in AY 2003-04, respectfully following the decision of ITAT dated 28.2.07 in ITA No.2878/Ahd./2006 for AY 2003-04, the disallowance made during the year is deleted. He submitted that the above observation of the Tribunal that CIT has based his decision on sanction letter of Dena Bank is also an apparent error. Dena Bank s loan was a secured loan, which was granted at the rate of 16.25%, whereas the loan of Vareli Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. to the applicant at 18% is unsecured loan and this was the agreement of the applicant before CIT(Appeals) which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A(2)(b) of the I.T.Act on account of suppression of charges received on account of job work charges for dyeing and printing from the sister-concern. He submitted that ld.CIT(A) held that this is not a case of 40A(2)(b) of the Act and the Tribunal committed an error of not deciding this neat point of law and on the contrary sent the matter back to CIT(A). 2.1. The ld.Sr.DR submitted that by making such submission by the ld.counsel for the assessee is trying to get the entire order reviewed which is not permissible under the law. The ld.Sr.DR submitted that there is no apparent error from the records. 3. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
