This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Auditor cannot be an accountant for the purposes of Rule 11UA (2)
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- M/s. Kottaram Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (OSD) (ITAT Bangalore)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2014-15 & 2015-16
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Bangalore
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
M/s. Kottaram Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (OSD) (ITAT Bangalore)
At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that as per para 4.2 of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2014-15 and para no. 4.3 of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2015-16, it is noted by the AO that person who is said to have valued the share of the assessee company as on 15.11.2013 and 02.05.2014 respectively is none other than the person who has signed the Audit report u/s. 44AB of IT Act. He further pointed out that this is also noted by AO in same two paras of assessment order th...
