ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2, KANPUR vs. M/S. MAHAVIR SHIP BREKERS, KANPUR

ITA 622/LKW/2018Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 September 2019AY 2013-149 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions as the additional evidence was admitted after considering the AO's remand report, and the AO himself found the comparable rates submitted by the assessee to be comparable on facts.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income related to the sale of oil and lubricants from ships, considering the sale rates lower than customs duty. The CIT(A) deleted these additions after considering additional evidence submitted by the assessee and a remand report from the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting and relying on additional evidence under Rule 46A without proper substantiation, and if the AO was justified in making additions based on presumed higher sale rates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 145

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
For Respondent: Shri A. K. Gupta, C.A

PER T.S. KAPOOR, A.M.: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Kanpur, dated 4/6/2018 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14, taking the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not been able to substantiate his claims during assessment proceedings.

2.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 has erred in law and on facts by relying on the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee u/r 46A which are not supported with proper and reliable circumstantial and documentary evidences.

3.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts and circ

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 145

All 1,584 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →