TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. And Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra­II,J. For the Appellant :­ Sidharth Dhaon 1. Heard Sri Sidharth Dhan, learned counsel for Revenue and Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for Assessee in all these appeals and perused the record. 2. All these appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision in case of Bharathi Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT ­ 253 CTR 98 (AP) and the decision rendered by the division bench of Uttrakhand High Court in Case of CIT Vs. Bhavani Shankar Vyas ­ 311 ITR 8 (Uttrakhand)." 4. Learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, stated that question raised in these appeals is squarely covered by judgment dated 25.01.2017 passed by this Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se appeals reads as under:­ "Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case in holding that the books of account has to be rejected before referring to the D.V.O. u/s 142A and ignoring the decision in case of Bharathi Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT ­ 253 CTR 98 (AP) and the decision rendered by the division bench of Uttrakhand High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken. 6. We find that in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, judgment in Sargam Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has been noticed in para 16 and it has been held that since it is a short judgment and facts are not very clear, therefore, same will not help the Assessee. 7. It appears that relevant facts were not brought to the notice of the Bench which caused decision in ....