TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rulings: Dismissed, upheld, agreed, and partly allowed.</h1> <h3>Income Tax, Officer – 1 (3), Versus. Shri Ravi Dubey,</h3> Income Tax, Officer – 1 (3), Versus. Shri Ravi Dubey, - TMI Issues involved:1. Addition of net profit rate to gross receipts.2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on separate addition.3. Addition on account of opening balance in capital account.4. Addition of unexplained investment in car and scooter.5. Application of legal provisions in disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).6. Turnover limit under section 44AB for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).Detailed Analysis:1. The first issue pertains to the addition of net profit rate to gross receipts. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer should apply 8% net profit rate on gross receipts, whereas the CIT(A) directed to apply the rate on net receipts after deduction of material costs. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the cost of material should not be included in the contract receipt, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on this ground.2. The second issue involves disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for separate addition. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the rejection of the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) and the turnover not exceeding the limit in the preceding year. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) and allowed the Revenue's appeal, citing legal precedents emphasizing the independent nature of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).3. The third issue concerns the addition on account of an unexplained opening balance in the capital account. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the remand report and explanations provided. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that it was the first year of business for the assessee, and the source of the opening capital was adequately explained.4. The fourth issue relates to the addition of unexplained investments in a car and scooter. The CIT(A) deleted the additions after receiving the remand report and considering the explanations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, as the source of funds for the purchases was clarified, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on this ground.5. The fifth issue involves the application of legal provisions in disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal referred to judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court to support its decision that the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) is independent of other provisions, thereby upholding the Revenue's appeal on this ground.6. The final issue concerns the turnover limit under section 44AB for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal noted the absence of material confirming turnover below the limit in the preceding year, leading to the conclusion that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal in this regard.
TaxTMI 