TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 29 June 2012 is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation, and as such the same is liable to be quashed along with the fresh assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30 September 2021 and order passed under section 250 of the Act dated 08 July 2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The illegality of the first assessment order (i.e. order dated 29 June 2012) goes to the root of the matter and as such the said order along with the subsequent assessment order is liable to be quashed. 1.2 That in the absence of order under section 127 of the Act, the notices issued, and orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -3 are illegal and without jurisdiction as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -3 was not competent and never had the jurisdiction to issue notices and pass the orders in the case of the Appellant. As such the reference under section 142(2A) of the Act and the assessment order dated 29 June 2012 and all subsequent orders including the fresh assessment order dated 30 September 2021 and CIT(A) order dated 08 July 2024 are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest recoverable from Cee-Ess Development Consultants (P) Ltd. for tax in AY 2010-11 and such confirmation of addition has resulted in double taxation of the said sum. Therefore, it is not justified on the part of Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the aforesaid addition. GROUND 3 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition on account of prior period expense. In doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to take cognizance of the details furnished before him. 3.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not deleting but remanding back to the Ld. AO the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 65,46,993/- on account of interest under section 7Q of Employees Provident Fund and & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and of Rs. 10,40,312/- on account of payment of service tax. 3.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in erroneously disallowing the expense to the extent of Rs. 18,10,251/- despite no additions were made in this regard by the Ld. AO and has failed to pass a speaking order to this effect. 3.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the evidences file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not justified on the part of Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the aforesaid addition. 6.3 That without prejudice to Ground No. 6.1 and 6.2, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not directing the Ld. AO to increase the value of opening job in progress for AY 2009-10 by Rs. 1,25,54,650/-. GROUND 7 7.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,23,57,173 made by the Ld. AO on account of losses incurred on pre 2003 as well as post 2003 projects completed during the current financial year as per regularly followed accounting method. In doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the documentary evidences filed before him. 7.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition without appreciating the fact that contracts were completed at a value lower than the estimated revenue and thereby losses have been booked upon completion of such contracts. GROUND 8 8.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in not adjudicating the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 86,89,569/- and remanding the same to the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,95,36,675/- made by the Ld. AO in respect of invoices not appearing in BIS. The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming such addition has also failed to direct the Ld. AO to allow the credit of corresponding TDS amounting to Rs. 97,60,938/-. 12.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,95,36,675/- while the basis of determining the quantum of addition is incorrect. The Ld. CIT(A) is also not justified in confirming addition without considering the documentary evidences provided before him by the Appellant. GROUND 13 13.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and the facts of the case in not adjudicating the issue of incorrect assessed income for Rs. 3,13,400 and remanding the same back to the Ld. AO for examination. 13.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the evidences filed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. GROUND 14 14.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and the facts of the case in not adjudicating the issue of non-grant of foreign tax credit of Rs. 45,91,188/- under section 91 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Income Tax, Circle 3(1) passed the order dated 27 December 2011 under section 142(2A) of the Act 29.06.2012 * The Addl. CIT passed the order under section 143(3) of the Act 31.12.2013 * The Respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Respondent filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 08.01.2016 * During the pendency of the appeal, an additional ground was raised before the Hon'ble Tribunal as under: "That the assessment order passed dated 29/06/2012 for A. Y. 2009-10 by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) " is illegal, had in law, without jurisdiction as the AddL CIT had no jurisdiction to pass the said assessment order. " 10.06.2016 * Hon'ble Tribunal vide its interim order directed the Revenue to. inter alia, produce the order under section 127 of the Act along with the assessment record, which was never produced. 29.05.2019 * Hon'ble Tribunal passed a remand order and directed the Respondent/Assessing Officer to frame the assessment denovo and also left the grou....