9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn of sub-contract amount in cash to the extent of 4.21 Crores only was found in this case. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld. The grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 132(4) in the case of Shri Ramesh Prajapati, partner of M/s Siddheshwari Infrastructure solemnly affirming that his firm had received cheque from Sadbhav group, which after deducting commission @3% and 2% TDS the balance amount was paid back as cash to Sadbhav Group, which was later correlated with the impounded materials in the form of loose paper (Annexure B/8 Page No.166). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." 5. Shri Ritesh Parmar, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the assessee is engaged in contractual work of infrastructure pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt could have been subjected to tax and accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly reduced the addition to 20% of the sub-contract expense. The Ld. AR further submitted that the addition as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was in fact high considering that addition @ 12.5% only was confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of the sister concern M/s. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. in IT(SS)A Nos. 170 to 175/Ahd/2021 & ITA No. 235/Ahd/2021 dated 10.01.2025. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. All the grounds taken by the Revenue pertain to a single issue. The AO had made addition for the entire sub-contract expense of Rs.22,83,64,319/- in respect of M/s. Siddeshwari Infrastructure, which was held as bogus. It is a trite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
