9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AH, A.M. : These cross-appeals are by Assessee and Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Hyderabad, dated 17-08-2012. Inspite of giving various notices, none appeared on behalf of assessee. Since cross-appeals are pending, notices were sent through the DR even in assessee's appeal. Accordingly, the cases were posted on 27-02-2017, 09-03-2017, 17-04-2017 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46,63,244/-. Ld.CIT(A) after considering the objections of assessee, relying on various case law held that assessment has been reopened validly and so there can be no reason to hold that the notice u/s. 148 was invalid. One of the additions made u/s. 40(a)(ia) to an extent of Rs. 60,56,048/- is with reference to payment made towards hire charges which are tax deductible under Chapter-XVIIB. Ld.CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - was however allowed. Addition of Rs. 7,71,386/- being Sundry Creditors was deleted by the CIT(A). CIT(A) also allowed the depreciation claim made by assessee which was disallowed by the AO in the order. Both the parties are aggrieved on that order. 3. In assessee's appeal, assessee is contesting the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 along with invocation of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd., Vs. ACIT reported as [136 ITD 23 (SB)] [16 ITR 1] (SB)(Visakha.)(Trib.) which has since been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Services Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 5172 of 2017 dt. 03-05-2017. In view of that, the order of the CIT(A) to that extent needs modification. AO has disallowed an amount of Rs. 60,56,048/- u/s. 40(a)(ia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
