9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew that no case is made out to entertain the present Review Petitions seeking review of the order [ 2020 (2) TMI 271 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . - INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2406 OF 2020 IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 24 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2477 OF 2019, INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2407 OF 2020 IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 25 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2471 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2021 - UJJAL BHUYAN MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Mr. D.A. Nalawade i/by Mr. Kumar Kale for the Petitioners Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr. P.A. Narayanan and Mr. Prabhakar Ranshur for the Respondents P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the Interim Application No. 2406 of 2020 filed in Review Petition (L) No. 24 of 2020 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the Tribunal and for re-hearing of the Appeal which is impermissible in law. Hence, we had dismissed both the Writ Petitions with costs. 6. In the present Review Petitions, the Petitioners have stated that the grounds reproduced by us in paragraph 4.1 of the order dated 31.01.2020 pertaining to the Appeal filed by the Petitioners before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the grounds reproduced in paragraph 4.2 pertaining to the Misc. Application dated 27.07.2017 filed by the Petitioners are identical / exact and therefore, the Petitioners are entitled to maintain the present Review Petitions. Though we agree that reproduction of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4.2 pertaining to the grounds in the Misc. Application wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is letter / SCN dated 20.07.2001. 2 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned assessing officer had in estimating the appellant's income disregarding the fact that in the assessment year 1997-98 the same was estimated at 1% of aggregate of total purchases and total sales and learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming such disregard. 3 The CIT(A) is further not justified in reducing the addition / estimation to 1.5% from 3% on sales and purchases. He ought to have restricted 1% on sale or purchase either, not on both. 3 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. AO had erred in disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
