9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, there is no mistake apparent from record - assessee submitted before us that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT, Circle- 33(1) New Delhi Vs Pearls of Beauty [ 2017 (7) TMI 999 - ITAT DELHI] wherein the Tribunal has upheld the findings of the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IB and 80IC in the ROI of the relevant assessment year with the consequential relief HELD THAT:- As perused the material on record including the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal aforesaid relied upon by the ld. counsel. We notice that the facts of the case relied upon by the assessee are not identical to the facts of the present case, therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act ] 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration which was subsequently revised. The assessee thereafter filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act on 2. 9. 2013 seeking rectification of intimation claiming that an amount of ₹ 6,50,000/- received as gratuity is not exigible to tax in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Avinash Chand Puri Others in CWP 23225 of 2010. The AO rejected the application on the ground that mistake is not apparent from record. Thereafter the assessee filed a second revised return in physical form again claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive (DR) supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), The Ld. DR further pointed out that this case was earlier heard by this Bench on 08.09. 2020, however the same was released for fresh hearing as it was noticed that the Hon'ble Pb. Haryana High Court had heard CWP No 22225 of 2010, involving identical issue and the copy thereof/statue of the said case was no brought on record by the assessee. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the assessee has not placed on record the copy of the said order, hearing may be adjourned and the assessee may be directed to produce the same on or before the next date of hearing. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record including the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
