Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dict, Circle-1(2), Pune
Appeal is dismissed in above terms
ITA 1885/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1885/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., 1401, A-Wing, One Bkc, Plot C-66, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. Pan : Aadcr5942E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 22.07.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit Circle-1(2), Pune/623/2014-15/227, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Very Factual Position Had Existed On 30.05.2022 & 21.07.2022 As Well. We Thus Proceed Ex-Parte Against The Assessee.
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)
…he observation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court at para 11 is reproduced as under: “With regard to the existence or otherwise of a written agreement between the parties, our attention has been drawn to Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 418 : (1972) 86 ITR 439 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that even if there is an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of certain amounts as commission, assuming there was such payment, that does not bind the ITO to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the assessee's business. The Supreme…