9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleting the addition of ₹ 1,96,85,581 by placing reliance on the orders of the Bombay High Court in assessee s own case for AY 1998-99 and 1999-2000, since for those assessment years, the appeal of the revenue was rejected on technical ground only without going into the merit of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) erred in law in not upholding the action of the AO in invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the I.T.Act in view of the assessee s failure to produce requisite evidence to establish that the invoice rates were varying according to the quality of the marble sold. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assessing Officer rejected the book results and made an addition of ₹ 1,96,85,581 as suppressed sales on account of three different type of sales one to institutional customer and second to other customers and third to the proprietorship of the directions of the company and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 as affirmed by Hon ble Bombay High Court, deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, Assessing Officer is in appeal before us. 5. Having heard both the sides, we find that there is no dispute that the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assesse s case there was no direct nexus between labour charges receipt and export business of the assessee. 8. Having heard both the sides, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bangalore Clothing Co.(supra), wherein, it has been observed that ) observed that explanation (baa) cannot be invoked in every matter involving receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, labour charges, etc. Moreover, the CIT(A) has decided the issue following the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bangalore Clothing Co.(supra). Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 9. Ground No.5 is thus dismissed. 10. Groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of ITAT Mumbai(SB) in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, reported in 88 ITD 273, which has now been affirmed by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court reported in 2010-TIOL-228-HC-MUM-IT, wherein, it has been held that notional sales tax incentives received by the company under the exemption scheme is a capital receipt and is not liable to tax. No contrary decision has been placed by learned Departmental Representative against the judgement of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries (supra). In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the sales tax incentives availed by the assessee of ₹ 6,79,18,854 and, accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
