https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313791 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. The court deleted the protective addition for commission income from accommodation entries, following the precedent in Bhanwarlal Jain case, holding that CIT(A) cannot confirm protective additions and must follow higher appellate forum decisions. The tribunal also set aside the gross profit rate addition, finding no justification for such addition when the assessee was not engaged in genuine trading activity but only provided accommodation entries. Additionally, the court rejected CIT(A)'s enhancement of commission income, ruling it unjustified and procedurally flawed due to violation of section 251(2) for not issuing proper show cause notice. en-us Mon, 27 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 May 2024 21:17:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313791 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. The court deleted the protective addition for commission income from accommodation entries, following the precedent in Bhanwarlal Jain case, holding that CIT(A) cannot confirm protective additions and must follow higher appellate forum decisions. The tribunal also set aside the gross profit rate addition, finding no justification for such addition when the assessee was not engaged in genuine trading activity but only provided accommodation entries. Additionally, the court rejected CIT(A)'s enhancement of commission income, ruling it unjustified and procedurally flawed due to violation of section 251(2) for not issuing proper show cause notice. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313791