9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t years, 2006-07 and 2008-09 respectively passed by Ld. CIT(A)-II, Denradun on the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.1245/del/12 (2008-09 filed by revenue) 1. Ld, CIT(A) has erred in 'aw and on tacts of the case in deleting the addition made on account of variation in GP of FL2 unit without appreciating the facts that the company was not maintaining proper books of accounts and preparing Balance Sheet and the special auditor was unable to express an opinion about the true and fairness of the profit arrived by the provisional profit loss a/c 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition made on account of variation in GP of Tourism division without appreciating the facts that the company was not maintaining proper books of accounts and preparing Balance Sheet and the special auditor was unable to express an opinion about the true and fairness of the profit arrived by the provisional profit loss a/c 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in*law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition made on account of variation in GP of Parvat Plastic without appreciating the facts that the company was not maintaining proper books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in upholding the deletion made by the C1T(A) on account of disallowance made u/s 36 (1) (va) r.w.s 2 (24) (x) for delay in payment of employees contribution. 2. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance under section 32 of the IT. Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts that the claim of depreciation remains unexplained as WDV on 01.04.2002 is not verifiable also chart of depreciation as per I.T. Act has not been submitted by the assessee. 3. Ld. CIT [A) has erred in law and on fact of the case in deleting the addition made on account of expenses under construction division without appreciating the facts that the assessee foiled to give information on the payments made to various other parties alongwith sub contractors. ITANo.3768/del/10 (2006-07 filed by assessee) 1. That, the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting the Assessee's contention that the additions on account of variation in GP of FL2 Unit were made without acknowledging the facts and overlooking and in summarily rejecting the detailed statement of facts submitted along with copies of accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us for assessment years 2003-04, that it is second round of litigation. It has been observed from assessment order that assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 17.02.2006 by making addition of ₹ 2,51,54,552/- against which, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed these appeals in favour of assessee however, confirmed addition on the basis of estimated income in case of FL-2 and CL-5. On an appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 1880/Del/2007, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal set aside appeal to Ld. AO with a direction to produce audited accounts in support of its computation of income and held that income of assessee should be recomputed on the basis of audited accounts. Accordingly, Ld. AO issued notices to assessee and computed ₹ 3,88,60,749/- as total income in the hands of assessee. Ld. CIT(A) gave part relief against order of Ld. CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us now. ITA No. 1286/del/13 (A.Y. 2003-04) 4. Ld. AO in order has recorded certain categorical finding of Co-ordinate Benche of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2002-03, 2003-04 2004-05. It is observed that assessee is who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not been approved by the Commissioner despair upheld. 7. In respect of construction expenses allowed by Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that he has followed his own decision in first round of appeal for the year under consideration for and has decided as under: 8. Ground number 7 challenges the adhoc disallowance of ₹ 2,00,000/- from expenses claimed in the Construction Division. It is seen that this issue was decided in favour of the Appellant vide Appeal no. 163/NTL/2005-06, order dated 31.01.2017 (AY 2003- 04) in the first round proceedings. The following finding was given:- I have considered the ground on which this addition was made, appellant s submission thereon and other materials available on record. In fact, this issue stands examined and resolved my predecessor during the course of appellant proceedings for A.Y 2011- 12. According to the appellate order for A.Y 2001-02, the appellant receives centage charge ranging from 10-12% of the gross amount of construction activities done for Government departments. The appellant furnished evidences which proved that the corporation received centage charges @ 12.5%. Therefore, it was held by my predecessor t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
