TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rieved by the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 09.05.2014 whereby the assessee's appeal against an order confirming the addition of Rs. 1,17,73,900/- was allowed. The question of law urged is whether the ITAT fell into error in holding that the said amount could not be added under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"). The rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ially the same, which amounted to double treatment, resulting in multiple taxation. Consequently, addition under Section 68 was deleted. However, the CIT(A) affirmed the AO's decision to bring to tax the sum of Rs. 1,17,73,900/- under Section 69. It is argued by the revenue that the ITAT fell into error in disturbing the concurrent finding of fact. Learned counsel highlighted that the assessee wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. Capex Projects Private Limited categorically pointed to no amounts being paid to or on account of the assessee, which warranted inclusion of the entire sum of Rs. 1,11,15,000/-. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, relied upon the remand report and submitted that even though there is no explicit mention of this in the CIT(A)'s order or in the ITAT's impugned order, the fact rem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in para 5.1. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The CIT(A) appears to have taken into account the remand report. The assessee, in turn, appears to have relied upon letters written by the associate companies, each one of which had mentioned that the sums were paid directly to the asseseee's vendor during the concerned period in the assessment year in question. The assessee's case wa....