DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper was not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and despite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating details/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp imaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper was not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and despite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating details/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp imaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper was not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and despite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating details/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp imaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

KSHITIJ MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

section of the Income Tax Act, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence addition should be deleted. Another argument of the ld Counsel was that similar commission was allowed in the past in the scrutiny assessment. The assessee had paid the commission @ 45% to the parties including the service tax amount. It is contended that in the assessment