CA Loan Bajaj Finserv
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

DCIT Vs M/s. Ganesh Plantation Ltd. (ITAT Ahmadabad)

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Ahmedabad

Brief :
The appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 which are arising from the order of the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 18.12.2015, in the proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Citation :
ITA No.472/Ahd/2016

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
( Through Virtual Court )

BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And
SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.472/Ahd/2016 (by Revenue)
CO No.59/Ahd/2016 (by Assessee)
[ in ITA No.472/Ahd/2016 ]
Assessment Year : 2009-10 )

The DCIT
Central Circle-1(3)
Ahmedabad
PAN/GIR No. : AAACG 7004 R
(Appellant)
 
Vs.

M/s.Ganesh Plantat ion Ltd.
Ganesh Corporate House
100 Ft. Hebatpur -Thal tej Road
Nr. Sola Bridge,
Of f . S.G. Highway
Ahmedabad-380 054
Respondent & Cross Objector)

Revenue by : Shri Karunkant Ojha, CIT-DR
Assessee by : Ms. Nipur Shah, AR

Date of Hear ing 26/10/2020
Date of Pronouncement 11/12/2020

 O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 which are arising from the order of the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 18.12.2015, in the proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in not sustaining the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and treating the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act as invalid.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the disallowance of lossclaimed of Rs. 10,18,15,500/- on sale and purchase of shares although no valuation report of share was submitted by the assessee justifying the huge loss incurred.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O.

4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.”

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 18 December 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 15
downloaded 6 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags