In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-12 v. M/S.pratiksha Enterprises, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in admitting the additional evidence and remanding the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: 4.Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ttm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1067 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income-Tax-12Vs.M/s.Pratiksha Enterprises
.. Appellant
.. Respondent.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant
Mr.Sanjiv M. Shah for the respondent
CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 23[rd] SEPTEMBER, 2011.
P.C.
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in admitting the additional evidence and remanding the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The ITAT in para 9 of its order while recording that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is just and proper to admit additional ground has directed that the matter be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the whole issue in the light of the additional evidence.
3.In our view, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT.
4.Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(K.K. TATED, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue