9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in accordance with the provisions contained u/s 144C(1) is a non-curable defect, we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by the ld. CIT(A), hence the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. - ITA NO. 1073/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2021 - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEEPAK CHOPRA, ADVOCATE SHRI ANKUL GOEL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MS. SARITA KUMARI, CIT DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, Addl.CIT, Special Range 6, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue ) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of revenue from BSNL project 30,96,98,566 Disallowance of provision for warranty 53,89,72,000 Disallowance of expenditure in relation to handsets issued on free of cost (FOC) basis 28,40,20,105 Disallowance of provision for obsolescence of inventory 3,05,93,250 Disallowance of depreciation on computer peripherals @ of 60% and limiting the same to 15% 2,01,17,941 Transfer pricing adjustment 4,27,32,000 4. When assessee approached the ld. DRP who has partly allowed the objections by reducin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. 7. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. We have perused the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) who has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee by following the order passed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court passed in assessee s own case for AY 2008-09 in WP (C) No.3629/2017 order dated 07.09.2017 by returning following findings : 5.7 I have perused the impugned order of the AO dated March 28, 2013 under section 143(3) of the Act which is part of the record. The facts of the case for the year under reference are the same as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) leads to the conclusion that when case was remanded to the assessee to decide afresh on all the issues except one issue already decided in favour of the assessee, the AO was mandatorily required to pass a draft assessment order as per provisions contained u/s 144C(1) of the Act, but AO has straightaway passed final assessment order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Identical questions having already been decided by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in assessee s own case for AY 2008-09 as to not passing a draft assessment order in accordance with the provisions contained u/s 144C(1) is a non-curable defect, we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
