“rule 46A”

Sheena Singh, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsheena Singh, B/303 Mayfair Marvel, Ahimsa Marg, Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad West, Mumbai, Dely S.O. – 400064, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Bakps1701F V/S

basis that the assessee has furnished the additional evidence without any accompanying petition making out a case under any of the four limbs of Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). Accordingly, in the absence of requisite documentary evidence, the learned CIT(A) held that ... assessment proceedings and thus the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence should have been admitted by the learned CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Rules. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted above, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue

Saremal Nihalchand Jain, Mumbai - Worli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 21(3)(2) Mumbai, Income Tax Officer Ward Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2010-11

relevant material on record. 3. The assessee in its grounds is aggrieved by the non considering of additional evidences filed by the assessee under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ( in short ‘the Rules’). The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicating issue in dispute is reproduced ... deposit of 8,10,000/- and other deposits before the ld CIT(A). However Ld. CIT(A) without following the due procedure under rule 46A of Rules, allowed part relief to the assessee. Under the rule 46A, the Ld. CIT(A) was required to forward the additional evidences

ITO 17(3)(1), Mumbai vs. European Trust, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

justified in admitting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules

Ewow Av Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -9(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Ewow Av Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 302, Mahavir Ind. Estate, Income Tax, Off. Mahakali Caves, Circle – 9(2)(2), Andheri East, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 (Pan : Aagca8548J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(Appeals) has erred in disregarding the additional evidences filed under rule 46A of the LT. Rules, 1962 in the course of appellate proceedings and passing a non speaking order, not giving any reasons for rejecting the appellant ... duly offered to tax. During the course of appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessee had filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) for admission of additional evidence, including the cash sale customer ledgers, invoices of cash sales containing details

ITO 5(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Kulinkumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

remittances and additions of Rs.2,16,06,333/- on account of cash deposits without calling for remand report from the AO as mandated under Rule 46A of the I.T. Act. 4. Facts of the case are that the assessee, a Private limited company engaged. in the business of tours ... assessment) this tantamount to additional evidence. In view of this factual position, the Department has raised ground no. 3 i.e. violation of Rule 46A while giving relief on the issue of addition made under the head foreign remittance and cash deposits. 9. Per contra, the learned AR has repeated