Maa Uma Agrifoods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The appellant/assessee e-filed its return of income on 30/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs.66,91,430/- in the status of Company. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 through CASS. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act was issued on 20/08/2013. On 09/05/2014, Sri Subodh Agrawal, CA appeared and filed the requisite documents along with power of attorney. Notice u/s 143(2)/143(1) of the Act were issued on 07/10/2014 along with detailed questionnaire. On completion of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.99,81,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred the present appeal with the following grounds: they disagreed with the order u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the demand calculated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was prejudicial to them, and they had valid case laws for taking total income computed u/s 250(6) as not per law.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Disagreement with the order u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
• 2. Demand calculated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is prejudicial to the assessee.
• 3. Total income computed u/s 250(6) is not as per law.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Peritus Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• National Highways Logistics Management Limited vs DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2005-06Allowed

• Karam Chand Prop. M/s Subhash Trading Co. vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana

  Chandigarh bench

• Subodh Gupta vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Dismissed

• Shri Vadagur Narayanappa Premachandra Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle – 2(1), Bangalore

  Bangalore benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• Vimal Sureshbhai Mishra vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench