Analysys Mason India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 3283 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. & YOGESH KUMAR U.S., J.M. Analysys Mason India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 1611/DEL/2021 31 May, 2023 Assessee by: Tarun Kandhari, Chartered Accountant & Renuka Suri, Chartered Accountant Department by: Kanv Bali, Senior Departmental Representative ORDER *Yogesh Kumar U.S., J.M.* This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 30-10-2018 passed by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals)-32, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to (CIT Appeals) for assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- (1) That the order is bad in law and against the fact of the case. (2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts by considering the foreign revenue account as receipts from customer account and passing the order accordingly. (3) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by not considering the fact that difference in revenue as per service tax return and Financial Statement is due to human error only and no mens era on the part of the appellant to suppress the income. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 3283 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. & YOGESH KUMAR U.S., J.M.

Analysys Mason India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

ITA No. 1611/DEL/2021

31 May, 2023

Assessee by: Tarun Kandhari, Chartered Accountant & Renuka Suri, Chartered Accountant

Department by: Kanv Bali, Senior Departmental Representative

ORDER

Yogesh Kumar U.S., J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 30-10-2018 passed by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals)-32, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to (CIT Appeals) for assessment year 2014-15.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

(1) That the order is bad in law and against the fact of the case.

(2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts by considering the foreign revenue account as receipts from customer account and passing the order accordingly.

(3) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by not considering the fact that difference in revenue as per service tax return and Financial Statement is due to human error only and no mens era on the part of the appellant to suppress the income.