9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rogramming job for Fortis Financial Services for which payment had also been received by the Assessee. It had also rendered financial consultancy services by arranging a loan from CitiCorp for Oscar Investment Ltd and had received commission. – Therefore expenditures are allowed - that the Assessee could not evict the tenant and as such the Assessee decided to sell the structure to the tenant hims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM No. 1166 of 2010 (for Delay) The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. ITA No. 119 of 2010 1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 5th December, 2008 in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Oscar Investment Ltd and had received commission. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the disallowance was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). 2. The Assessing Officer has also made an addition on account of sale of a shop which according to the Assessee had on estimated value of Rs 5,00,000/-. The shop in question was in the occupation of a tenant and was a temporary structure known as a "khokh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t himself. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of any additional amount being received by the Assessee over and above the amount of Rs 6,000/- disclosed by the Assessee in his account. 4. Thus on the findings of fact, the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and accepted the sale price as Rs 6,000/- and, therefore, deleted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer to examine the additional evidence. The Tribunal held that since there was no challenge to the genuineness of the cash credit, the finding of CIT(A) in deleting the said addition after admitting additional evidence did not call for any interference. 6. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter. 7. No perversity in the findings of the Tribunal has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
