Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs U.P. Straw & Agro Products Ltd. on 25 August, 2000

4. On hearing both the parties, we admit the petitions filed by the assessee under section 27. The Ld. CIT(A) in his order in page 11, though taking note of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Murali Agro Products Ltd. and also observing that in assessee's case there is material found/unearthed during the search proceedings he confirmed the legality of assessment made under section 153A holding that these two assessments were abated. On a careful perusal of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and the assessment order, we are not able to find as to what incriminating materials were seized which related to the addition made under section 68 of the Act in these two assessment years. There is nothing mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) about the seized materials and how it leads to the additions made under section 68 of the Act in these two assessment years. It is an admitted fact that there is no pending proceeding in both these assessment years as on the date of search.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1