Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties
 M/s. InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., Ground Floor, Central Wing, Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi Vs. JCIT, Special Range : 4, New Delhi.
 Chatru Mal Garg Plot No.98, Sector 25, Faridabad, Haryana Vs. ACIT Circle 1 Faridabad
 Baxter India Pvt.Ltd., 5th Floor, Tower-A, Bldg.9, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), New Delhi.
 Sh. Ankit Kapoor, B-102, R.G. City Centre, Plot No. 4, Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-63(4), New Delhi
 Ashish Dham, C-1/2, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Room No.315, B Block, Civic Centre, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi
 Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, H.O.Near Bajrang Bhawan, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak.
 Arora & Associates Reality Limited, 131, GF, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi Vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore
 Kiran Sales Private Limited 12/42, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi. Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER Ward 14(3) New Delhi.
 National Housing Bank, Core-5 A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi
 Naveen Kumar Varshneya 20165, Prestige Shanti Niketan, Near ITPL, Whitefield, Bangalore Vs. ITO Ward- 7 (3) New Delhi
 AKT Investments Pvt. Ltd., 57, Lajpat Nagar-3, South Delhi, New Delhi. Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), New Delhi.
 DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi Vs. M/s. HTL Ltd, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai
 Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Nanauta, Sharanpur, Uttar Pradesh Vs. JCIT Range-3 Saharanpur

Sh. Ankit Kapoor, B-102, R.G. City Centre, Plot No. 4, Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-63(4), New Delhi
October, 27th 2021

This Miscel laneous Appl ication is arising out in ITA No. 7692/Del/2018 vide order dated 06.02.2019.


2. The assessee is engaged in the business of Trading and Export of processed and non-processed edible products during the year. The sale off the assessee was increased from Rs.8.23 Crores to Rs.58.81 Crores. The Assessing Off icer held that there was more than 700% growth whereas the GP went down by 2.3%. Before the AO, the assessee explained that the reason was due to computation in the market.

3. On going through the facts, the Assessing Of f icer held as under:

“I am not satisf ied with the submission of the assessee that due to competition in the market when the sales increase more than 700%. In the absence of proper submission and details, I disal low a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to cover the leakage in the trading results and is added to the income of the assessee.”

 

The Assessing Off icer further made addition of Rs.5.14 Crores on account of “sundry creditors” which is the total outstanding amount under the head “sundry creditors” owing to non-furnishing of confirmations in response to the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While the notices have been issued to the “sundry creditors” of value of Rs.2.58 Crores out of which repl ies have been received from the creditors to the tune of Rs.1.30 Crores, the addition should be rightly of Rs.1.28 Crores only which stands corrected by the ld. CIT(A). This is an apparent error in the Assessment Order. From the record, we find that the fact of non-receipt of the response from the “sundry creditors” has not been intimated to the assessee neither any show cause notice has been issued before making the addition which is a clear infraction of the principles of natural justice.

For more information

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting