Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: due date for vat payment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

Shri Vineet Sharma, Shri Vineet Sharma, 144, Vs.. Commissioner of income Tax Commissioner of income Tax (Commissioner of Income Tax- Commissioner of Income Tax---XII,, New Delhi). New Delhi).
November, 12th 2013
               IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                                `H' : NEW DELHI
                    DELHI BENCH `H

                       G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND
           BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL,
                                GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
            SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG,

                       Nos.4109/Del/2011 & 4110/Del/2011
                   ITA Nos
                               Years : 2005-
                    Assessment Years             2006-07
                                       2005-06 & 2006-


Shri Vineet Sharma,              Vs.    Commissioner of income Tax
144, Savita Vihar,                      (Central)-II, New Delhi
                                        (Central)-
Delhi ­ 110 092.                        (Presently jurisdiction of
PAN : ABJPS1169C.                       Commissioner of Income Tax-Tax-XII,
                                        New Delhi).
     (Appellant)                            (Respondent)


             Appellant by         :    Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCA.
             Respondent by        :    Shri R.S. Meena, CIT-DR.

                                  ORDER

    G.D.AGRAWAL, VP :
PER G.D.AGRAWAL,

      These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the
order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi
dated 10th March, 2011 for the AY 2005-06 & 2006-07.


2.    There is a delay of 118 days in filing the appeals. The assessee
has filed applications for condonation of delay in which he has
submitted that he has been suffering from heart ailments and, in the
past, has undergone surgery. That since April, 2011, he is not keeping
good health and was advised to take bed rest and avoid stress. That
the order framed under Section 263 was received by his son who did
not communicate the same to the assessee for the above reasons.
Later on, upon receipt of the notice dated 23.08.2011, the assessee
came to know about it for the first time. Therefore, the appeals could
not be filed within the specified limit.         In support of the above
                                   2                  ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


contentions, the assessee has placed on record the documents in the
form of medical certificates placed at paper book page Nos. D-5 to D-
16.   It was, therefore, requested that the delay in filing the appeals
may be condoned.


3.    Learned DR objected to the condonation of delay.


4.    After considering the submissions of both the sides and keeping
in view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others ­ [1987] 167 ITR
471, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient
cause in filing the appeals in time.    The assessee has filed ample
documentary evidence in the form of medical certificates, prescription
etc. in support of its claim that he is not keeping good health for the
past few years.     Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the
appeals.


5.    In these two appeals, common grounds are raised by the
assessee which read as under:-


      "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in
      law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II,
      New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Hon'ble CIT) erred
      in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act and
      hence, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT under section
      263 of Act is bad in law and void ab initio.

      2.    That on the facts and circumstances of the case and
      in law the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-II,
      Delhi erred in utilizing information furnished by the
      appellant during proceeding under section 264 of the Act
      to infer that penalty order dated 26.06.2009 framed u/s
      271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by Assistant
      Commissioner of Income Tax, (hereinafter referred to as
      the Ld. Assessing Officer) is erroneous and prejudicial to
      the interest of revenue.
                                      3                    ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011







     3.   On the facts and circumstances of the case and in
     law, the Hon'ble CIT erred in holding that since the
     quantum amount for levy of penalty has been wrongly
     taken by the assessing officer and hence, has erred in
     remanding the matter back to the ld. Assessing Officer.

     4.    On the facts and circumstances of the case and in
     law, the CIT erred in initiating proceedings under section
     263 arising out of same order dated 271(1)(c) pending
     adjudicating before him in proceedings under section 264
     of the Act in appellant's own case.

     5.    That on the facts and circumstances of the case and
     in law the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-II,
     Delhi erred in concluding that the penalty order dated
     26.06.2009 framed u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961
     by ld. A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of
     revenue.

     6.    That on the facts and circumstances of the case and
     in law the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-II,
     Delhi erred in initiating and concluding proceedings under
     section 263 during the pendency of proceedings u/s 264 of
     the Income Tax Act.

     7.    That the grounds of appeal as herein are without
     prejudice to each other."

6.   At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned
counsel that search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was
conducted at the business/residential premises of the assessee on
10/11.01.2007.   That in response to notice under Section 153A, the
assessee filed the return of income disclosing the income of
`20,32,637/-   and   `3,17,01,205/-       for   AY   2005-06   and    2006-07
respectively. The same was accepted under Section 143(3) read with
Section 153A of the IT Act.    The Assessing Officer, vide order dated
26.06.2009, levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to
`2,69,280/-    and   `1,04,73,075/-       for   AY   2005-06   and    2006-07
respectively. The penalty was levied on the income of `8,00,000/- and
                                    4                   ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


`3,11,67,633/- for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively because that
was the total concealed income worked out by the Assessing Officer as
per penalty order.     Against the penalty order, the assessee filed
application under Section 264 on 06.08.2009 before the CIT, Central-II
for quashing the penalty order. On the other hand, the CIT, Central-II
initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vide notice dated
03.03.2011.    The assessee furnished the reply before the CIT on
09.03.2011.   However, the CIT passed order under Section 263 on
10.03.2011 in which he set aside the penalty order and directed the
Assessing Officer to dispose of the matter in accordance with the
provisions of the IT Act.       That the CIT treated the assessee's
application under Section 264 as infructuous vide order dated
10.03.2011 on the ground that the penalty order has already been set
aside in proceedings under Section 263. The assessee, aggrieved with
the action of the Assessing Officer, is in appeal before the ITAT.


7.    At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the
assessee argued at length. His arguments were two-fold :-


(i)   That the jurisdiction under Section 263 can be exercised by the
CIT only if the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as
prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.        That under Section
271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer is vested with the discretion to levy
penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of the income which is
concealed by the assessee or the income in respect of which
inaccurate particulars have been furnished. The Assessing Officer has
been vested with the discretion to levy the penalty at the rate of 100%
to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded.         Now, in the case of the
assessee, the assessee offered the additional income of `18,20,505/-
and `3,13,85,360/- in AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. That the
income returned in response to notice under Section 153A in which
                                    5                  ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


these additional incomes were included was duly accepted by the
Assessing Officer in the order passed under Section 143(3). That in the
penalty order, the Assessing Officer worked out the concealed income
at `8,00,000/- for AY 2005-06 and `3,11,67,633/- for AY 2006-07. That
the only basis of passing the order under Section 263 is that the
Assessing Officer has not levied the penalty on the entire additional
income disclosed in the return furnished in response to notice under
Section 153A. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that
the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable only in respect of the
concealed income and not in respect of every income.             That the
Assessing Officer has been given discretion under Section 271(1)(c) to
levy the penalty in respect of the income concealed.         That in the
penalty order, the Assessing Officer has clearly mentioned "The total
concealment works out to Rs.8,00,000/-." in AY 2005-06 and "The total
concealment works out to Rs.3,11,67,633/-." in AY 2006-07.            Thus,
when in the opinion of the Assessing Officer the entire additional
income is not the concealed income and he has levied the penalty on
substantial portion of the additional income disclosed, it cannot be said
that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as
prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If the view of the Assessing
Officer is accepted, then levy of penalty would be automatic in respect
of the entire additional income disclosed by the assessee after the
search. In the case under consideration, if we read the penalty order,
it would be evident that in paragraph 1 itself, the Assessing Officer has
given the details with regard to income assessed by him and the
search conducted at the assessee's premises. He also mentions about
the total undisclosed income declared during the course of search by
the group. Thereafter, at page 2, he has discussed the legal position
with regard to levy of penalty and then he finally works out the penalty
on the total concealed income as worked out by him.          That merely
because the Assessing Officer has not given the working of concealed
                                         6                  ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


income by him, it cannot be said that his order is either erroneous or
prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.              In support of this
contention, he relied upon the following decisions:-


       (a)     CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. ­ [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC).
       (b)     CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. ­ [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay).


(ii)         That against the penalty order in both the years, the assessee
had filed the petition under Section 264 before the CIT. That the CIT,
instead of disposing the application of the assessee under Section 264,
kept it pending with him, thereafter initiated proceedings under
Section 263, passed the order under Section 263 in which gave
direction to the Assessing Officer to enhance the penalty and then
dismissed the assessee's application under Section 264 holding the
same to be infructuous. The same is not as per the spirit of Section
264.         He also furnished before us the fresh penalty order passed in
pursuance to the order under Section 263 wherein the penalty has
been enhanced and levied on the income of `18,18,429/- for AY 2005-
06 & `3,13,69,743/- for AY 2006-07. He, therefore, submitted that the
order of learned CIT passed under Section 263 in both the years may
be quashed.


8.           Learned DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the
learned CIT passed under Section 263. He submitted that if we read
the assessment order as well as penalty order, it is obvious that the
Assessing Officer intended to levy the              penalty on      the   entire
unaccounted income unearthed as a result of search. He referred to
page 2 of the assessment order for AY 2005-06 wherein the Assessing
Officer has noticed that the assessee group had offered an income of
`16 crores as unaccounted income. However, as the disclosure is the
consequence of search, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that
                                   7                   ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


the assessee had concealed the income and accordingly, he initiated
penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Similarly, in the penalty
order also, on last page, the Assessing Officer has recorded the finding
"if a penalty cannot be levied subsequent to unearthing of additional
income detected during a search, it would be an open incentive to all
to conceal their income till such time it is detected by the department
and get away with just the tax liability and "nil" penalty". He stated
that from the combined reading of the finding in the assessment order
as well as in penalty order, it is obvious that the Assessing Officer
intended to levy the penalty on the entire income unearthed as a
result of search. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
on the income which was less than the income unearthed as a result of
search and which was offered as an additional income in the returned
income under Section 153A was a patent mistake committed by the
Assessing Officer.   This was a factual mistake which came to the
knowledge of the CIT when he called for the record. That the CIT may
call for the record suo motu or during some other proceedings. That
when he examined the record, he found that the penalty order of the
Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the
Revenue and, therefore, he set aside the same to the file of the
Assessing Officer for passing fresh penalty order in accordance with
law. The same should be sustained.


9.    We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides
and perused the material placed before us. There is no dispute that
against the penalty orders passed under Section 271(1)(c), the
assessee did not file any appeal but filed revision petition under
Section 264. During the pendency of the revision petition with him,
the CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263. In the order under
Section 263, he set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer
and then he dismissed the assessee's petition filed under Section 264
                                   8                   ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


holding the same to be infructuous. He held the penalty order under
Section 271(1)(c) to be erroneous on the ground that the Assessing
Officer had not levied the penalty in respect of the entire additional
income offered in the return filed in response to notice under Section
153A. In the fresh penalty order passed in pursuance to order under
Section 263, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty on the entire
additional income disclosed in the return filed in response to notice
under Section 153A.     These facts have also been recorded by the
Assessing Officer in the fresh penalty order passed under Section
271(1)(c) on 30th September, 2011. For ready reference, the same is
reproduced below:-


      "The assessee moved revision petition under Section 264
      on 06/08/2009 before the CIT Central-II for quashing the
      penalty order. On the other hand, CIT, Central-II initiated
      proceedings u/s 263 of the Act observing that in the
      penalty order, the A.O. had erroneously taken the figure of
      `concealed income' at Rs.8,00,000/- as against additional
      undisclosed income offered by the assessee in the return
      of income at Rs.17,88,427/-. Ld.CIT, Central-II, New Delhi
      concluded the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act
      vide order dt. 10-03-2011 thereby setting aside the order
      dt. 26.06.2009 of the AO and restoring back the matter to
      the file of the AO. Assessee's petition under Section 264 of
      the Act was also disposed off on the same date wherein it
      was observed:

      "In the interest of natural justice the penalty order is set-
      aside and the proceedings are restored back to the file of
      the A.O. with the directions to dispose off the matter in
      accordance with the provisions of income tax Act, vis-a-viz
      judicial pronouncements on the issue after affording proper
      opportunity to the assessee"."

10.   That Section 264 of the Act reads as under:-


      "264. (1) In the case of any order other than an order to
      which section 263 applies passed by an authority
                                    9                  ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


      subordinate to him, the Commissioner may, either of his
      own motion or on an application by the assessee for
      revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this
      Act in which any such order has been passed and may
      make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and,
      subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order
      thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as
      he thinks fit."

11.   From the above, it is evident that under Section 264, the CIT can
revise any order passed by any authority subordinate to him on his
own motion or on the application made by the assessee. He can pass
the order as he thinks fit not being an order prejudicial to the assessee.
Thus, it is very clear that under Section 264, the CIT cannot pass any
order which is prejudicial to the assessee.     Now, in the case under
appeal before us, it is evident that the assessee moved revision
petition under Section 264 before the CIT, Central-II for quashing the
penalty order.     On the other hand, the CIT, Central-II initiated
proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act and passed order
thereon which was prejudicial to the interests of the assessee. That
Section 264 of the Income-tax Act debars the CIT from passing any
order which is prejudicial to the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion,
when the CIT cannot pass the order prejudicial to the assessee under
Section 264, once the assessee approached him for getting relief under
Section 264, if he is allowed to pass order under Section 263
prejudicial to the assessee, it would make prohibition under Section
264 that the CIT cannot pass the order prejudicial to the assessee as
nullity. Therefore, in our opinion, on the facts of the assessee's case,
the order under Section 263 cannot be sustained.


12.   That even on facts, in our opinion, the order under Section 263 is
not liable to be sustained because it is a settled position that penalty
under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be levied on every income.            The
                                   10                 ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


penalty is to be levied only when the conditions prescribed under
Section 271(1)(c) are satisfied.   Even when we see the language of
Section 271(1)(c), even on concealed income, the levy of penalty is not
automatic because discretion has been given to the Assessing Officer
to levy or not to levy the penalty which would be clear from the use of
the words "may" in Section 271(1)(c).     Moreover, he has also been
given discretion to levy the penalty at the rate ranging between 100%
to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Therefore, if the Assessing
Officer had levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the part of
the additional income, it cannot be said that the order of the Assessing
Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the
Revenue within the meaning of Section 263. If we look at the facts of
the case, we find that on the substantial portion of the additional
income, the penalty has already been levied.       In AY 2006-07, the
income disclosed in response to notice under Section 153A and which
was accepted also under Section 143(3) was `3,17,01,205/-, out of
which, the Assessing Officer has already levied the penalty for
concealment on the income of `3,11,67,633/-. That in AY 2005-06, the
income returned in response to notice under Section 153A was
`20,32,637/- which was assessed also and, out of which, penalty has
been levied on the income of `8,00,000/-. Thus, we find that on the
substantial portion of the income assessed, penalty under Section
271(1)(c) has been levied. In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer
has discussed each and every fact as well as legal position in detail
and, at the end, he has also mentioned the amount of concealment
worked out by him and then calculated penalty thereon. That merely
because in the opinion of the CIT, the penalty would have been levied
on the entire returned/assessed income, it cannot be said that the
assessment order was either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of
the Revenue.
                                  11                  ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


13.   That Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Max India Ltd. (supra)
held as under:-


      "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in
      section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be read in
      conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed
      by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a
      consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be
      treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For
      example, when the Assessing Officer adopts one of two
      courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of
      revenue, or where two views are possible and the
      Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the
      Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an
      erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the
      view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in
      law."




14.   That Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd.
(supra) at pages 114 & 115 of 203 ITR observed as under:-


      "From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order
      cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in
      accordance with law. If an ITO acting in accordance with
      law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be
      branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply
      because, according to him, the order should have been
      written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a
      case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner
      for that of the ITO, who passed the order, unless the
      decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised
      where the ITO while making an assessment examines the
      accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts
      and circumstances of the case and determines the income
      either by accepting the accounts or by making some
      estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the
      records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by
      the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the
      Commissioner, he would have estimated the income at a
      figure higher than the one determined by the ITO. That
      would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine
      the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher
                                   12                  ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


      figure. It is because the ITO has exercised the quasi-judicial
      power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at
      a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be
      erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel
      satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case
      that in the opinion of the Commissioner the order in
      question is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. But
      that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner
      with the power of suo motu revision because the first
      requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent."

15.   In our opinion, on the facts of the assessee's case, the ratio of
both the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Bombay High
Court would be squarely applicable. The Assessing Officer had levied
the penalty on substantial portion of the income assessed.          Merely
because the Commissioner is of the opinion that the penalty levied by
the Assessing Officer is on the lower side and left to the Commissioner
he would have levied the penalty on the entire income assessed would
not vest the Commissioner with the power of suo motu revision under
Section 263.    In view of the above, we, respectfully following the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court
cited supra, quash the orders passed under Section 263.


16.   The assessee has also filed an application for admission of
following additional grounds:-


      "That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, while
      disposing of the present appeal against the order passed
      U/s 263, directions may be given for consequential relief in
      respect of order passed U/s 264 which has been disposed
      off on the ground that the penalty proceedings have been
      restored to the AO by way of order passed U/s 263 under
      challenge before this Hon'ble Tribunal,

      That, on the facts and circumstances of the case,
      directions may be given to restore the revisions petition
      U/s 264 which is dismissed as infructuous in consequence
                                   13                ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


       of the order passed U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act under
       challenge in this appeal.

       That on the facts and circumstances of the case, such
       other relief and directions may be given pertaining to the
       CIT's orders under sections 264 of the Act as may be
       deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Tribunal."

17.    At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned
counsel that the additional grounds are in the nature of consequential
relief and these grounds should arise only when the orders under
Section 263 are quashed.      He submitted that since the Assessing
Officer passed the order under Section 263 setting aside the penalty
order, he dismissed the assessee's application filed under Section 264
holding the same to be infructuous.     It is submitted by the learned
counsel that if the orders under Section 263 are quashed, then as a
consequence, the assessee's application under Section 264 should be
directed to be revived and disposed of on merits in accordance with
law.


18.    Learned DR, on the other hand, stated that this appeal before
the ITAT is against the order under Section 263. There is no appeal
pending before the ITAT against the order under Section 264 and,
therefore, the ITAT is not competent to issue any direction with regard
to order under Section 264.


19.    We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed
before us.   We find that in the additional grounds, the assessee is
claiming the relief against the dismissal of order passed under Section
264. Though the relief claimed is only consequential in nature but, as
rightly pointed out by the learned DR that we do not have any
jurisdiction to give any direction with regard to order passed under
Section 264, therefore, we refrain ourselves from giving any direction
                                    14                   ITA-4109 & 4110/D/2011


with regard to order passed under Section 264. However, suffice it to
say that all natural consequences of quashing of the order under
Section 263 would follow. With these observations, we dispose of the
additional grounds of the assessee.


20.    In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed pro tanto.
       Decision pronounced in the open Court on 8th November, 2013.


                   Sd/-                                  Sd/-
                      GARG)
      (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG)                      (G.D.AGRAWAL)
         JUDICIAL MEMBER                        VICE PRESIDENT

Dated : 08.11.2013
VK.

Copy forwarded to: -

1.     Appellant : Shri Vineet Sharma,
                                                  092.
                   144, Savita Vihar, Delhi ­ 110 092.

2.                                                (Central)-II,
       Respondent : Commissioner of income Tax (Central)-
                    New Delhi (Presently jurisdiction of
                                              Tax-XII, New Delhi).
                    Commissioner of Income Tax-
3.     CIT
4.     CIT(A)
5.     DR, ITAT

                               Assistant Registrar

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions