DCIT, VILLUPURAM vs. D.SANTHA, KALLAKURICHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

bogus and assessed the credits as the income of the assessee. Subsequently, the AO passed a rectification order u/s 154 on 10.07.2014, in which he reduced Rs.22,59,999/-, representing the opening balance in the loan creditors’ accounts which cannot be considered as the income of the current year, and sustained the addition under this head

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

bogus and assessed the credits as the income of the assessee. Subsequently, the AO passed a rectification order u/s 154 on 10.07.2014, in which he reduced Rs.22,59,999/-, representing the opening balance in the loan creditors’ accounts which cannot be considered as the income of the current year, and sustained the addition under this head

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

154 of the Act. The assessee further argued that a perusal of the remand report itself reveals that the AO had not obtained the approval of the Id.PCIT prior to passing the impugned assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee prayed before the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment order, being void and unsustainable in law, be set aside. 28. Upon a careful