{"id":27834,"date":"2022-06-26T22:43:39","date_gmt":"2022-06-26T17:13:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/energy-infratech-pvt-ltd-v-dcit-2021-210-ttj-309-199-dtr-145-delhitrib\/"},"modified":"2022-06-26T22:43:39","modified_gmt":"2022-06-26T17:13:39","slug":"energy-infratech-pvt-ltd-v-dcit-2021-210-ttj-309-199-dtr-145-delhitrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/energy-infratech-pvt-ltd-v-dcit-2021-210-ttj-309-199-dtr-145-delhitrib\/","title":{"rendered":"Energy Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 210 TTJ 309 \/ 199 DTR 145 (Delhi)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee claimed deduction of\u00a0 expenses which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\u00a0 the assessee had not deducted tax at source as per section 40(a) of the Act. On appeal the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition by adopting a reasoning which is different from the Assessing Officer\u00a0 on the basis that the assessee was unable to produce evidence to show that the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and no evidence was produced. On appeal the Tribunal held that by adopting different reasoning than that of Assessing Officer\u00a0 there is violation of right of limited finality.\u00a0 Order\u00a0 was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh order as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. (AY.\u00a0 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Business expenditure-Confirmed by the CIT(A) by adopting different reasoning than that of Assessing Officer-Order set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh order as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing [S. 37(1),40(a),  254(1)]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7eW","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27834","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27834"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27834\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27835,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27834\/revisions\/27835"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}