TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) has erred by dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. w/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the I. T. Act, 1961 without understanding the facts and circumstances of the case, since the same is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. J.A.O. has erred by initiating the Inquiry Proceedings u/s 148A of the I. T. Act, 1961 since the same was to be conducted in faceless manner and therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 is bad in law. The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s Hexaware Technologies Ltd vs. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. at the time of taking approval u/s 151 of the I. T. Act, 1961 from Hon'ble PCIT, Mumbai-6 has violated provisions of section 282A of the I. T. Act, 1961 since the form- Approval u/s 151 of the I. T. Act, 1961 is not signed by the nor the name and designation of the specified authority is men....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by confirming addition made by the Ld. A.O. by alleging that, the contention of the appellant is factually incorrect since the appellant has claimed expenses of professional fees amounting to Rs. 79,32,000/- while filing ITR without understanding the fact that, the appellant had capitalized such expenditure by increasing the value of closing WIP (Inventory) since, appellant is required to prepare the books of accounts as per applicable Accounting Standards and file the ITR accordingly. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. had issued a SCN on 25/12/2019 requiring the appellant to submit its reply on or before 27/12/2019 before 11:00 A.M. which is against the principle of natural justice since the appellant only had a period of 1 day to collect the documents and prepare and submit the reply. In this regard, reliance is 7253150 placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Madhuri Sameer Gokhale vs. Addl. Joint/ Deputy Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre [2025] 172 taxmann.com 69....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....726,457.37 Out of the total expenditure, the major component pertains to "professional fees" amounting to Rs. 79,32,000/-, incurred towards legal and professional services. In respect of the said payments, the assessee duly deducted tax at source, the details whereof are annexed at page 87 of the APB. However, the Ld. AO, without affording any proper opportunity to the assessee, disallowed the entire expenditure. It was further submitted that during the impugned assessment year, there was no revenue from operations and, accordingly, the entire expenditure incurred in the course of business activities was capitalized as part of the construction cost of the project. Ignoring this material fact, the Ld. AO disallowed the entire amount of "other expenses." The Ld. AR invited our attention to APB pages 96 to 108, wherein the assessee had furnished all requisite documentary evidence in support of its claim. Nevertheless, without verifying the same, the Ld. AO proceeded to pass the assessment order. The Ld. AR further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously observed that the impugned amount was debited to the Profit & Loss Account. In this regard, our attention was drawn to APB pages....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch property is under development during the year was at New Mumbai. The assessee purchased the land from the party, M/s Blue Circle Infratech for an amount of Rs. 84,90,69,000/-. It is also noted that the assessee is maintaining a running and current account with the party and related to these transactions of the land, the assessee has made the various payments to the party amount to Rs. 74,67,60,500/-. Only the balance retained which amount to Rs. 10,23,08,500/- as outstanding liability in assessee's books of accounts. The Ld.AR invited our attention on the ledger account of the assessee with the parties which is annexed at APB page 140 to 148. 8. A survey was conducted at the premises of the party and it is informed that the party has set off the 'trade payable' with the assessee and the balance amount was written off as 'bad debt' in the books of the party, M/s Blue Circle Infratech. The Ld.AR further argued that currently, the assessee and the party is under litigation and the matter of dispute in court. Copy of the petition is enclosed in APB at pages 122 to 139. The Ld.AR further stated that the party has filed a winding up petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t held: "The entries in the books of accounts of the appellant would amount to an acknowledgement of the liability to Messrs. Prayagchand Hanumanmal within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and extend the period of limitation for the discharge of the liability as debt." In several judgments of this Court, this legal position has been accepted. In Daya Chand Uttam Prakash Jain v. Santosh Devi Sharma [1997] 67 DLT 13, S.N. Kapoor J. applied the principle in a case where the primary question was whether a suit under Order 37 CPC could be filed on the basis of an acknowledgement. In Larsen & Tubro Ltd. v. Commercial Electric Works [1997] 67 DLT 387 a Single Judge of this Court observed that it is well settled that a balance sheet of a company, where the defendants had shown a particular amount as due to the plaintiff, would constitute an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Rishi Pal Gupta v. S.J. Knitting & Finishing Mills (P.) Ltd. [1998] 73 DLT 593, the same view was taken. The last two decisions were cited by Geeta Mittal, J. in S.C. Gupta v. Allied Beverages Co. (P.) Ltd. (I.A. No. 7987/2004, decided on 3....