TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f variation in GP of Tourism division without appreciating the facts that the company was not maintaining proper books of accounts and preparing Balance Sheet and the special auditor was unable to express an opinion about the true and fairness of the profit arrived by the provisional profit & loss a/c" 3. "Ld. CIT(A) has erred in*law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition made on account of variation in GP of Parvat Plastic without appreciating the facts that the company was not maintaining proper books of accounts and preparing Balance Sheet and the special auditor was unable to express an opinion about the true and fairness of the profit arrived by the provisional profit& loss a/c" 4. "Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition made on account of variation in GP of Parvat wires without appreciating the facts that the company was not maintaining proper books of accounts and preparing Balance Sheet and the special auditor was unable to express an opinion about the true and fairness of the profit arrived by the provisional profit & loss a/c". 5. "Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee foiled to give information on the payments made to various other parties alongwith sub contractors. ITANo.3768/del/10 (2006-07 filed by assessee) 1. That, the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting the Assessee's contention that the additions on account of variation in GP of FL2 Unit were made without acknowledging the facts and overlooking and in summarily rejecting the detailed statement of facts submitted along with copies of accounts and evidence placed. The learned AO also ignored the fact that the special auditor did not find any defect in the accounts of FL 2 Unit and has carefully derived the profit of the Unit. Addition sustained Rs. 14,39,903/- 2. That, the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting the Assessee's contention that disallowance of expenses u/s 40A(3) were wrong in the light of the fact that the payment were made by the corporation to its agents who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of the corporation. Addition sustained Rs. 5.43,882/- 3. That, the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in rejecting the Assessee's contention that disallowing the payment of st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3,88,60,749/- as total income in the hands of assessee. Ld. CIT(A) gave part relief against order of Ld. CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us now. ITA No. 1286/del/13 (A.Y. 2003-04) 4. Ld. AO in order has recorded certain categorical finding of Co-ordinate Benche of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2002-03, 2003-04 2004-05. It is observed that assessee is wholly owned company of the Govt. of Uttrakhand. The accounts of assessee are required to be audited by Chartered Accountant (CAG) appointed by Comptroller & Auditor General of India from year to year. It has been observed therein that appointment of auditor is normally delayed by the office of the CAG, hence, returns were filed in these assessment years on estimate basis. 5. It is emerging out from assessment order that, assesses had annexed tentative profit and loss account alongwith original return of income. Subsequently on remand by this Tribunal before assessing officer, assessee filed audited return of income for assessment year 2003-04. Ld. AO made certain additions which were challenged before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance upon order of his predecessor for assessment year 2008-09 de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant proceedings for A.Y 2011- 12. According to the appellate order for A.Y 2001-02, the appellant receives centage charge ranging from 10-12% of the gross amount of construction activities done for Government departments. The appellant furnished evidences which proved that the corporation received centage charges @ 12.5%. Therefore, it was held by my predecessor that addition on this account is called for. The facts of the case for the assessment year under consideration are identical. Therefore, respectfully following decision of my predecessor on this issue, I delete the addition on this account to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-." 8. In respect of the addition that has been deleted in respect of depreciation we observed by Ld. CIT (A) as under: "Ground no. 6 challenges the fact that depreciation has not been allowed on the ground that complete details were not available in the accounts. The Ld. AR has submitted a detailed working of depreciation (Rs.17,87,601/-) at the Appellate stage. It is felt that since depreciation is a statutory deduction the Ld. AO must take this working into consideration and allow depreciation as per law at the time of giving effect to this Appellate o....