9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the remand report of the ld. AO - HELD THAT:- No adverse comments were given by the ld AO in the remand proceedings. We find that the ld CIT(A) had taken cognizance of the remand report while adjudicating each issue and had granted relief to the assessee. In our considered opinion, there could be no grievance that could be left to the revenue. Hence, logically the revenue ought not to have even preferred an appeal on these issues since, AO had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the remand proceedings. See Smt B Jayalakshmi [ 2018 (8) TMI 208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Ground Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 raised by the revenue are dismissed. Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted addition - as per AO CIT(A) has erred in not consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue of cash deposited during the demonetization period. The Id. CIT(A) has failed to consider any cash book showing the day-to-day receipt of cash as well as cash expenditure to substantiate the cash in hand. The Id. CIT(A) has failed to examine any authentic documents to explain the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period The Id. CIT(A) has erred in considering the abnormal increase in cash deposits during the period of demonetisation compared to pre-demonetisation period. 2 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 3,60,50,216/- made u/s 69A of the Act as the Source of investment made by the assessee- company had not been substantiated with documentary evidence. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and there was no agreement was executed between the assessee-company and landlord. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,23,94,635/-, The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the genuineness of the expenses amounting to Rs. 1,23,94,635/- incurred during the year under consideration. 8 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 3,75,000/- on account of kumaoni rasoi and cash payment. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 3,75,000/- as the assessee company had declared cash vouchers for payment towards kumaoni rasoi. 9 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Smt B Jayalakshmi Vs. ACIT reported in 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad HC). Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 4. Ground No. 4 raised by the revenue is challenging deletion of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. We find that there was no exempt income derived by the assessee during the year under consideration and hence there cannot be any applicability of provisions of section 14A of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure Ltd reported in 448 ITR 674 (Del). Respectfully following the same, ground No. 4 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
