banner_ad

Criteria to be exigible to Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act


Last updated: 31 August 2021

Court :
ITAT Hyderabad

Brief :
These six Revenue�s appeals for AYs.2008-09 to 2013-14; in seriatim, arise against the CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad�s separate orders dt.21-07-2016, 16-03-2016, 17-03-2016 & 21-07-2016 passed in case Nos.0039, 0038, 0278, 0267, 0037 & 0036/2015-16 & 2014-15, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, �the Act�]; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

Citation :
1412/Hyd/16 2008-09

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax,
Central Circle-2(4),
Hyderabad

Asst. Commissioner of
Income Tax,
Central Circle-2(4),
Hyderabad

Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax,
Central Circle-2(4),
Hyderabad

Appellant

vs

M/s.Gayatri Projects
Limited,
Hyderabad
[PAN: AAACG8040K]

Respondent

For Revenue : Smt. S.Praveena, DR
For Assessee : Shri Mohan Kumar &
Shri B.Shanti Kumar, ARs
Date of Hearing : 16-08-2021
Date of Pronouncement : 24-08-2021
O R D E R

It transpires at the outset that the Revenue has raised its identical twin substantive grounds seeking to challenge correctness of the CIT(A)’s action inter alia restricting disallowance of assessee’s certain identical expenditure claim pertaining to Dummugudem Project to the tune of Rs.15.82 crores (in lead case ITA No.943/Hyd/2016) to the extent of 12.5% and in deleting un-explained credits addition of Rs.20,50,99,560/- (involving varying sum in all these six assessment years); respectively.

2. Learned CIT-DR vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the impugned cash expenditure additions. Her case is that the assessee had failed to prove its cash expenditure regarding Dummugudem Project during the course of assessment. She fails to dispute that the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dt.31-03-2013 had already disallowed the assessee’s entire expenditure pertaining to the very project to the tune of Rs.32,18,13,943/- as bogus under a separate head.

3. Learned CIT-DRs vehement contention before us is that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the impugned addition on account of assessee’s failure to explain identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the corresponding creditor parties which could sufficiently throw light on source of the sum in issue. She further invited our attention to the assessee’s Managing Director, Shri T.V.Sandeep Reddy survey statement.

4. These Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective
case files.
5. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th August, 2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement.

 

CCI Pro

Comments




CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members

Follow us
add to google news


Company
22 May 2026
Audit assistant

Displayandbeyond

Mumbai

CA

View Details
Company
16 May 2026
Account & Audit Asst

RAHUL KHANDEBHARAD & ASSOCIATES

Nashik

B.Com

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 28 May 2026
Accounts, Audit & Compliance Executive

Shyam Joshi & Associates

Pune

B.Com

View Details
Company
22 May 2026
Sr. Financial Analyst - Consolidation

Search Synergy

Mumbai

CA

View Details
Company
27 May 2026
Audit Assitant

Virender K Gupta and Co

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details
Company
29 May 2026
Finance Head

Bhawar Sales Corporation

Chennai

Graduate (Any)

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 04 June 2026
Article

Rakhecha & Co.

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 31 May 2026
Article Assistant

KPRS And Associates

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details