← All Phrases

“rule 46A”

AppealsRule 46ARule 46A2,967 judgments

The decision most relied on for rule 46A is CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 268), cited in 426 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rule 46A

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.
299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
426
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT
231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court
186
citing judgments

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

CIT v. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd.
16 Taxmann.com 27 · 2011 · High Court
120
citing judgments

The CIT(A) must strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules for admitting additional evidence, ensuring all prescribed conditions exist, reasons are recorded, and reasonable opportunity is provided to the Assessing Officer.

CIT v. Nikunj Eximp
216 Taxmann.com 171 · 2013 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must consider additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A and cannot reject it without proper appreciation of the facts, especially when the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it earlier.

CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.
332 ITR 396 · 2011 · High Court
85
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) must admit additional evidence if it is crucial for the proper disposal of the appeal, ensuring substantial justice to the appellant.

CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd.
245 CTR 397 · 2011 · High Court
58
citing judgments

The production of fresh evidence at the appellate stage before the Commissioner (Appeals) is strictly governed by the conditions and procedures laid down in Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.

CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury
288 ITR 179 · 2007 · High Court
55
citing judgments

The appellate authority must follow Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules when admitting additional evidence, which includes recording reasons for admission and providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify or refute the evidence. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing rule 46A

Ganeshram Umanath Nayak, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChagFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 254(1)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding his view that assessee has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought ... appellant to the CIT and thus the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to accord the fundamental right given to the Appellant under Rule 46A. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that A.O. could

Namita Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed on merits in the manner as indicated above

ITA 2598/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.2596/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Lalita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.3, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja New Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acspb 0775 F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.2598/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Namita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.2, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acppj 8817 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aman Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm :

Section 133(6)Section 68

that the Learned CIT(A) after admission of additional ITA No.2596 & 2598/Del/2022 Smt. Namita Bajaj and Smt. Lalita Bajaj 3 evidence of assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 called remand report from the AO, which was filed on 15.03.2020. Further drawing our attention towards relevant concluding ... satisfaction of the AO, therefore, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Before Learned CIT(A), assessee filed an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and remand report was called from the AO wherein the AO after verification and examination of additional evidence

Lalita Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed on merits in the manner as indicated above

ITA 2596/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.2596/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Lalita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.3, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja New Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acspb 0775 F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.2598/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Namita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.2, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acppj 8817 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aman Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm :

Section 133(6)Section 68

that the Learned CIT(A) after admission of additional ITA No.2596 & 2598/Del/2022 Smt. Namita Bajaj and Smt. Lalita Bajaj 3 evidence of assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 called remand report from the AO, which was filed on 15.03.2020. Further drawing our attention towards relevant concluding ... satisfaction of the AO, therefore, the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act. Before Learned CIT(A), assessee filed an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and remand report was called from the AO wherein the AO after verification and examination of additional evidence

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hem Bhattad, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR
Section 37Section 40

evidences without affording a reasonable opportunity to the AO for the AO for examination of the evidences as per sub rule 3 of Rule 46A of the examination of the evidences as per sub rule 3 of Rule 46A of the examination of the evidences as per sub rule ... Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and passed this appellate order in violation of Rule Income Tax Rules and passed this appellate order in violation of Rule Income Tax Rules and passed this appellate order in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 46A of the Income

Hem Bhattad, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1934/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR
Section 37Section 40

evidences without affording a reasonable opportunity to the AO for the AO for examination of the evidences as per sub rule 3 of Rule 46A of the examination of the evidences as per sub rule 3 of Rule 46A of the examination of the evidences as per sub rule ... Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and passed this appellate order in violation of Rule Income Tax Rules and passed this appellate order in violation of Rule Income Tax Rules and passed this appellate order in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 46A of the Income

Foundation Co of Canada Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5131/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11. Dcit (International Taxation), Vs. M/S. Foundation Co. Of Circle-1(3)(1), Canada Ltd. (Now Merged New Delhi With Aecon Construction Group Inc.), 28, Continental House, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacf1541L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 195Section 195(2)

facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in admitting addi tio n al e v ide nce in violation of Rule 46A, without giving A.O. any opportunity to examine them 3. As could be seen from the grounds raised, the issue relates to deletion of addition

DCIT, (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi vs. Foundation Co of Canada Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7809/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11. Dcit (International Taxation), Vs. M/S. Foundation Co. Of Circle-1(3)(1), Canada Ltd. (Now Merged New Delhi With Aecon Construction Group Inc.), 28, Continental House, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacf1541L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 195Section 195(2)

facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in admitting addi tio n al e v ide nce in violation of Rule 46A, without giving A.O. any opportunity to examine them 3. As could be seen from the grounds raised, the issue relates to deletion of addition

ITO, Ward- 15(1), New Delhi vs. Lalit Modi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7780/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7780/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Lalit Modi, Ward-15(1), E-20, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpm7800R Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

order of ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 06.09.2018. 2. At the outset, the revenue has contended that the additional evidences filed under Rule 46A have been accepted by the ld. CIT(A) without giving an opportunity to the AO to verify the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness

Manohar Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 159/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(b)

Prakash Soni back statements, copy of sale deed and various other evidences and requested to entertain the same as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. rules, 1962. Following the principles of natural justice, additional evidences were admitted and forward to the AO calling for his report after making

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Nagpur vs. Shri Shyamsunder Nandlalji, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/NAG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Dcit, Circle-3, Vs Shyamsunder Nandlalji Nagpur. Jaiswal, 205, Sai Shraddha Apartment 15, Tawakkal Layout, Tawakkal Complex, Wadi, Nagpur. Pan: Adapj 3226 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, DR

examine the issues or evidence or documents as produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings as envisaged under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. Any other ground that may be raised during the proceedings.” 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee ... opportunity to the AO to re-examine the issues/evidences/documents as produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings which was in contravention of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. We observe from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that certain oral facts were stated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1)(1), Surat vs. Manish Sumatilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 382/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 54F

assessment proceedings the assessee was provided adequate opportunities and admission of additional evidences without providing any opportunity to the AO resulted in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. 4. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) ought ... Manish Sumatilal Shah 4. The assessee also made prayer for furnishing documentary evidence to support the aforesaid factual position by filing application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (in short, the Rules). To support his submission, the assessee relied upon various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts

Humuza Consultants, Mumbai vs. The CIT (A), Nface Inc Tx Dept, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2193/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115BSection 115OSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15BSection 68

admitted the appeal. 5 ITA 2193/Mum/2023 Humuza Consultants 7. The assessee also filed a petition for admission of additional evidence on 04.09.2020 under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee submitted a detailed note about the impugned transaction along with the additional evidences before ... with regard to non-admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A). Before proceeding further we will look at 10 ITA 2193/Mum/2023 Humuza Consultants Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules which governs the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) – Production of additional evidence before the 1[Joint Commissioner

ACIT-13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Pizzeria Pure Foods Restaurants India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2108/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalacit – 15(3) (1), R. No. 218, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Pizzeria Pure Foods Restaurant India Pvt. Ltd, 702, A Wing, 7Th Floor, Prism Tower, Mindspace, Link Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400 062 Pan – Aaacp9511C ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Aarti Sathe & Ms. Aasavari Kadam, AR
Section 250

accepting additional evidence submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings stating that the case is covered by clause (a) of sub rule 1 of Rule 46A i.e. the AO did not admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, while undisputedly the addition was made by the AO for want ... also wherein, assessee submitted complete data and information pertaining to the expenses claimed. These submissions of the assessee were taken as additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and report of the AO is also taken into consideration by Ld. CIT (A) and assessee also filed

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur vs. Aviral Finance Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ito-4(1) Aviral Finance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur Ground Floor, Nalghar Chowk, Raipur – 492 001 [Pan: Aabcg 2701 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Shri Praveen Goyal, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the due provisions of law under Rule 46A of the IT Rules by accepting additional evidences, without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer while deleting the addition ... produced by the assessee before CIT(A) but those documents were not confronted to Learned AO for his rebuttal. This was clearly violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, therefore, on this count also the order of Learned CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. The order

Manish Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle-I, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5522/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16 Manish Sharma, Vs. Dcit 510, Circle-1, Patrakar Parishar Apartment, Ghaziabad Sec-05, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. Pan Ateps8104J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, the assessee filed application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) dated 28.02.2019 stating therein that due to unavoidable circumstances he could not file the requisite details/evidence before the Ld. AO. Though details ... additional evidence. In his rejoinder the assessee submitted that his case is covered by sub-clause(c) and (d) of sub-section(1) of Rule 46A and urged for admittance of additional evidence in the interest of justice. 4.2 On merits, the assessee filed written submission vide letter dated

ITO Ward - 54(5), New Delhi vs. Roshan Lal Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 5150/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ratnesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80C

total direct/indirect expenses. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the fresh/additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 despite the fact that the A.O. had vide his remand report ITA Nos. 5149 & 5150/Del/2019 requested that assessee ... allowed to submit fresh evidence, as it does not qualify for the same in view of the explicit provisions laid down under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

ITO Ward - 54(5), New Delhi vs. Roshan Lal Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 5149/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ratnesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80C

total direct/indirect expenses. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the fresh/additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 despite the fact that the A.O. had vide his remand report ITA Nos. 5149 & 5150/Del/2019 requested that assessee ... allowed to submit fresh evidence, as it does not qualify for the same in view of the explicit provisions laid down under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission of additional evidences produced by the assessee. That, on merits ... merits of addition under the said provision is not sustainable, then in such scenario, the issue whether there has been any violation of Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) while providing relief to the assessee on this very section itself becomes redundant and infructuous. Ld.DR also could not refute

M/S Salitho Ores Private Limited, Panaji vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - M1, Margao

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission of additional evidences produced by the assessee. That, on merits ... merits of addition under the said provision is not sustainable, then in such scenario, the issue whether there has been any violation of Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) while providing relief to the assessee on this very section itself becomes redundant and infructuous. Ld.DR also could not refute

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission of additional evidences produced by the assessee. That, on merits ... merits of addition under the said provision is not sustainable, then in such scenario, the issue whether there has been any violation of Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) while providing relief to the assessee on this very section itself becomes redundant and infructuous. Ld.DR also could not refute