AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Representatives of both the sides agreed that facts in issues are identical in all these appeals under consideration. On this concession, we heard the appeals together. The learned counsel filed a detailed chart explaining the facts in issues qua the grounds of appeal. The ld. D.R. fairly conceded that the details exhibited in the charts are true to the facts. The first common grievance relates to the applicability of Section 44AF of the Act. The learned counsel fairly conceded that under instructions he is not pressing this ground. Therefore the ground relating to the applicability of Section 44AF along with sub grounds are dismissed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Corporation in Income Tax Appeal No. 523 of 2013 and also in the case of Murli Agro Products. The relevant portion of the decision in the case of Continental Warehousing (supra) reads as under:- "Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the AO while passing the independent assessment order u/s. 153A r.w. s 143(3) of the I.T. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act establish that the reliefs granted under the finalized assessment/reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. If there is nothing on record to suggest that an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal High Court. Undisputedly, during the course of the search and seizure operation, not a single piece of paper was found. 5. Considering the facts in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (supra), we do not find any reason/justification in making the impugned additions. Accordingly we set aside the findings of ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O to delete the impugned additions. Grievance relating to additions on account of household expenses and additions on account of unexplained investments are accordingly allowed. 6. The above findings would also cover the additions made on account of capital gains pursuant to the valuation made by the DVO in assessment 2002-03 in ITA NO. 116/Ahd/2011 and addition of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition. Per contra, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the order of the Revenue authorities. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the order of the authorities below. Undisputedly the impugned addition is made only on the basis of loose paper which shows that certain payments were made for acquiring the share in the partnership firm. Assuming yet not accepting that the said payment was actually made but then it was made for acquiring the share in the partnership firm. This by its very nature is a capital receipt in the hands of the Assessee. Therefore assuming yet not accepting that even this transaction has taken place it is a capital receipt which cannot justify the impugned additions. We accordingly set aside the findings of ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es below. We have also gone through the affidavit filed before the ld. CIT(A). In our considered opinion the ld. CIT(A) should not have rubbished the affidavit without going into the merits. Therefore in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the files of the A.O. The A.O is directed to decide the issue afresh in the light of the contents of the affidavits. Keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Company 30 ITR 181. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 12. (2) IT(SS)A No. 221/Ahd/2011. The Assessee is aggrieved by the addition of Rs. 5 lacs treated as unaccounted cash receipt on surrender of interest in M/s. J.P. Marketing. This issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5,44,256/- being 40%. The A.O further found that some of the vans were purchased before September 2000 and some were purchased after September 2000. The A.O was of the firm belief that higher rate of depreciation is allowable on vehicles purchase after 01.10.1998 but before 01.04.1999. Since the vehicles purchased by the assessee do not fulfill the criteria, the higher depreciation claimed was denied. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated for the excessive claim of depreciation. 17. During the course of penal proceedings, the Assessee was asked to show cause why penalty should not be levied. Assessee strongly contended that it was under a bona fide belief that it was entitled for higher rate of depreciation. Therefore it ca....