Ginni Refractories Pvt. Ltd, Rajgangpur vs. DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed
ITA 442/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.442/Ctk/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Ginni Refractories Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Main Road, Rajgangpur- 770017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 9701 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Pawan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Sumbalpur, Dated 05.09.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0040/14-15 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. Basis Principal Of The Income Tax Act Is That If Someone Is Showing Expenses Than Other Person Should Reflect The Same As Receipts In Its Books Of Account. "Ginni Refractories Pvt Ltd Shows Sorting & Chipping Expenses Of Rs 3,942,306/-In Its Books Of Account To M/S Anand Traders & M/S Anand Traders Has Also Filed Its Income Tax Return Reflecting The Same Receipts In Its Books Of Accounts. Hence Basis Principal Of The Income Tax Act Is Complied." 2. There Are Two Kinds Of Provisions Under The Act, - One In Respect Of What Is Allowable & Other In Respect Of What Is Not Allowable, I.E., They Override The Provisions. As Discussed Also From Time-To-Time, Overriding Provisions Should First Be Applied & Then Only One Can Decide The Allow Ability Of Expenditure. If Any Expenditure Is Not Allowable Due To Any Provisions, Then That Expenditure Should Not Be Allowed. These Are Specific & General Provisions Which Do Not Allow
For Appellant: Shri Pawan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)
…ays tax in the highest rate slab by including interest & Salary received from M/s Anand Traders. As such, no case of tax evasion is occurred. CBDT's Circular N0.6P and decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 310 ITR 306 are applicable to this extent. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of Calcined Mag. Carbon Grog. and Trading of Rejected Grog and filed the return of income on 30.09.2012 for the A.Y.2012-2013 declaring total income of Rs.32,18,145/-. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequ…
