Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai Manjuvedi Jotikumar Bhansali, Mumbai

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This appeal in ITA No.1250/Mum/2016 for A.Y.2010-11 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-32/IT-447/ITO-15(2)(1)/13-14 dated 23/12/2015 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 22/03/2013 by the ld. Income Tax Officer – 15(2)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

Citation :
ITA No.1250/Mum/2016

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT), 
‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM
&
SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM
ITA No.1250/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2010-11)

ITO 20(2)(2) Room No.212, Piramal Chamber Lalbagu, Mumbai – 400 012
PAN/GIR No. AABPJ8422J
(Appellant)

Vs.

Smt. Manjudevi Joitkumar Bhansali Room No.12, Pratiksha Tower, New Municipal Building, R.S.Nimkar Marg Mumbai – 400 008
(Respondent)

Revenue by Shri Oommen Tharian
Assessee by Shri Veerkumar Shah
Date of Hearing 23/11/2020
Date of Pronouncement 30/12/2020

 O R D E R 

PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): 

This appeal in ITA No.1250/Mum/2016 for A.Y.2010-11 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-32/IT-447/ITO-15(2)(1)/13-14 dated 23/12/2015 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 22/03/2013 by the ld. Income Tax Officer – 15(2)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the ld. AO u/s.68 of the Act in respect of loans received from certain parties by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We find that the revenue has also raised an additional ground stating that the ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidences which were not produced by the assessee before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings as well as in remand proceedings.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 02 January 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 29
downloaded 5 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags