Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
From the Courts »
 Rajesh Kumar Prop, N. W. Overseas, 42,Devi Murti Coloy, Panipat Vs. ACIT, Panipat Circle, Haryana
 Shri Madhukar Arenja, 702, Odyssey-II, Hiranandini Garden, Powai, Mumbai Vs. The ACIT, Circle 47(1), Room No.107, Drumshape Building, New Delhi.
 M/s Creative Ideas, B 304, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward 28(4), New Delhi
 Khazan Singh Anand, Kothi No. 2, GF Kailash Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward 40(5), New Delhi
 M/s GAIL (INDIA) LTD 16, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI Vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 12 C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI
 Total Integrated Design (India) Pvt. Ltd. LG F7A, Mandakini NRI Complex, Greater Kailash IV, New Dlehi. Vs. ITO Ward 25(3) C.R. Building, New Delhi.
 Sayar Devi Baid, 1/1942A, Moti Ram Road, Shahdra, New Delhi Vs. ITO Ward 56 (3) New Delhi.
 SNW Smith Consultants Pvt. Ltd, 8 th Floor, Commercial Tower, Hotel Le Meredien, Janpath, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 5, New Delhi
 Shri Sanjeev Gupta, City Hospital and Maternity Home, Nursing Home Site 2, Opp. Sagar Cinema, Sector 16, Faridabad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad.
 Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd, (earlier known as Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd) Vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Gurgaon
 Ved Parkash Bharti, S/o. Shri Parmanand, H. No. 1049-50, Sector-13-17, HUDA, Panipat Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal

Shri Rohtash Singh, L 32/5, DLF Phase II, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Gurgaon
November, 09th 2020

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 21/10/2015 passed by the learned CIT(Appeals)-2, Gurgaon [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds:

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 30th March, 2014, as passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as “the A.O.”] and as upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)] vide order 21st October, 2015 is void ab initio.

 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance to the tune of Rs.17,28,000/- on account of fencing and commission expenses.

For more information

 

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting