2011 (12) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,96,85,581 by placing reliance on the orders of the Bombay High Court in assessee's own case for AY 1998-99 and 1999-2000, since for those assessment years, the appeal of the revenue was rejected on technical ground only without going into the merit of the case." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) erred in law in not upholding the action of the AO in invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the I.T.Act in view of the assessee's failure to produce requisite evidence to establish that the invoice rates were varying according to the quality of the marble sold. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut having any satisfactory explanation from the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the book results and made an addition of Rs. 1,96,85,581 as suppressed sales on account of three different type of sales one to institutional customer and second to other customers and third to the proprietorship of the directions of the company and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 as affirmed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, Assessing Officer is in appeal before us. 5. Having heard both the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....galore Clothing Co., 260 ITR 371(Bom), since in assesse's case there was no direct nexus between labour charges receipt and export business of the assessee." 8. Having heard both the sides, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bangalore Clothing Co.(supra), wherein, it has been observed that ) observed that explanation (baa) cannot be invoked in every matter involving receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, labour charges, etc. Moreover, the CIT(A) has decided the issue following the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bangalore Clothing Co.(supra). Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). ....