9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the ld. CIT(A, Kota dated 26-12-2012 for the assessment year 2007-08 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds. 1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26-12-2012 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted. 2. ₹ 14,57,125/-: The ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honours indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 2.1 At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he does not want to press Ground No. 1. In view of the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed as such. 5.2 Briefly, the facts stated are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) was framed vide order dated 30-09-2009 whereby the AO made various disallowances including the claim of the assessee in respect of the transaction in shares as capital gain treating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the assessee relied upon following case laws:- (a) CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bom.) (b) ITO vs. Rohit Anand, 127 TTJ 122 (Del.) (c) Bharat Kunverji Kenia vs. Addl. CIT , 130 TTJ 86 (Mum) 5.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5.5 We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and the orders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
