9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Duty of Rs.47,05,008/- in the "Purchase Price" for working out the profit as per the provisions of Section 44AC of the Act – order of CIT cancelled by ITAT - held that - The Tribunal has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others versus A Sanyasi Rao & others J.T. [2008 -TMI - 5502 - SUPREME Court], wherein it has been held that inspite of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and may be noticed in brief: The original assessment in this case was completed on 27.4.1992 on a total income of Rs.6,69,700/-. Subsequently, it was set aside by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vide his order u/s 263 of I.T.Act.1961 dated 16.1.1995. The assessee is a liquor contractor. The CIT observed that during the relevant accounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the said order passed under section 263 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee. Heard Shri A.N.Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Department. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India others versus A Sanyasi Rao others J.T. 1996(2) SC 625, wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
