9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 17.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- "1 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to 50,68,350/-u/s 68 of the Act on 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 per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Rs. 10,64,995/- incurred during the year under consideration. 6. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing amounting to Rs. 32,13,000/- paid on account of rent during the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 32,13,000/- as the expenses incurred on account of rent was not for business purpose 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile 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, the ld AO had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the remand proceedings. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court 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 du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
