Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Anupam Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed
ITA 172/GTY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Anupam Nirman Private Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati Vs Limited 1St Floor, Kabita Mansion Rajgarh Link Road Chandmari Guwahati - 781003 [Pan : Aaica 4965 B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, Guwahati, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/03/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “(I) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,20,77,310/- On Account Estimation Of The Net Profit @ 7% Of Total Turnover For The Year. (Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 49,05,724/- On Account Of Disallowance Towards Interest Expense Against Loan Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 11,26,247/- On
For Appellant: Shri Kishor Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40Section 43B
…carried out u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act, are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and, therefore, in view of the settled precedents including the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573, and several other judgments, the additions made by the Assessing Officer deleted by the ld. CIT(A). Though the ld. D/R supported the order of the ld. CIT(A), he could not controvert the fact that the additions in question are no have any nexus with any incriminating material found during the course of search. 4. We have heard rival contentions a…
