9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as income before the settlement commission. CIT (A) deleted this addition for the reason that the amount has already been considered in income of the assessee and other entities before the settlement commission. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the addition. Merely because the order of the settlement commission has been challenged before the Hon ble High Court, unless that order is reversed, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, ground no. 1 to 3 of the appeal is dismissed. Allowability of deduction of education cess - HELD THAT:- We find that in view of amendment by introduction of explanation 3 inserted by Finance Act, 2022 with retrospec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not made true and full disclosure before the Hon'ble Commission?" 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that all the entries of the Cash Transaction Record has been offered by the 16 entities of the Indiabulls Group, which had filed applications before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, without quantifying and identifying, which of the 16 entities, who were before the Hon'ble Income tax Settlement Commission offered the income relevant to the entries found in the name of the assessee." 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the learned CIT(A) is justified in allowing the deduction of education cess of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC), wherein it has been held that additional claim of deduction can be made by filing a revised return of income only? 8. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need be." 02. The assessee is a company engaged in housing and finance and other ancillary services. Return of income was filed on 29th September, 2012 at ₹304,69,86,660/-. It was revised at the same figure on 27th March, 2014. Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) also concluded at the same income. Subsequently, search took place on 13th July, 2016 on India Bulls Group and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the assessee and assessee also produced the copies of the relevant books of account showing the withdrawals and deposits. The learned Assessing Officer did not believe the same because of the difference in narration in the bank account. We find that there are identical expenditure which are held to be unexplained expenditure for seven years which has been deleted by the learned CIT (A). Further, it was also the claim of the assessee that the transactions have already been offered as income before the settlement commission. The learned CIT (A) deleted this addition for the reason that the amount has already been considered in income of the assessee and other entities before the settlement commission. In view of this, we do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
