TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luation of Share Price. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,50,692/- on account of disallowance of Salary and Travelling Expenses. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s.14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 has to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 when the computation of the assessee was not found to be correct and as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of 37,46,945/- made u/s.36(1)(iii) of the I.T.Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee had diverted interest bearing loans obtained to various entities interest free for non-business purpose. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." 3. During the course of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereto, vide impugned order dated 25/08/2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the issue of initiation of reassessment proceedings following its findings rendered in assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06. The learned CIT(A), however, granted partial relief to the assessee on merits. Being aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the relief so granted by the learned CIT(A) on merits. Further, the assessee by way of petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, while supporting the impugned order has raised ground pertaining to reassessment proceedings, which was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). 8. During the course of hearing, learned AR, inter-alia, submitted that there is no compliance of section 149(1)(b) of the Act in the reasons recorded by the AO. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative ('learned DR') submitted that no scrutiny assessment was made in the present case and the assessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from CBI. Learned DR further submitted that not mentioning of income escaping assessment in the reasons would not vitiate the reassessment proceedings. 9. We have considered th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai 400 021. They are running the above mentioned companies from the same address and at most of the companies, their employees are directors. They are falsely submitting the business of purchase and sales of software in most of the companies though none of the companies are having any infrastructure or manpower of the same. (Insider Trading with listed company in a stock market) Shri Arun Dalmia and Shri Harsh Dalmia through their concern namely M/s. Basant Marketing P. Ltd. and M/s. Satya Securities Ltd. has acquired holding of 5.55% in Granules India Ltd. Without following norms of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. They in connivance with promoter and brokers namely Mr. Mahendra Kumar Khirodwala and Mr. C. Krishna Prasad MD of M/s. GIL acquired huge quantity of shares in the name himself and his family members. SEBI has levied penalty of Rs. 10 lakh on 27.03.2009. The assessee company is one of the beneficiaries which have received bogus accommodation entries. Investigation carried out by the CBI-ACB has established prima facie that unsecured loans appearing in the books of the assessee company are not genuine loans, but were only bogus ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1)(b) not being forthcoming, further proceedings in pursuance to the said notice cannot be sustained. The notice issued being not in conformity with the provisions of the Act, it being the base or the foundation, edifice built upon it, has to fall." 12. Similar view was also expressed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 300 (All.). 13. At this stage, it is also relevant to note following observation of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs R.B.Wadkar: [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom.): "20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. He has to speak through his reasons. It is for the As....