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>Court affirms Tribunal's income assessment for 2001-02. Valid income estimation, evidence crucial for expenses. 10% profit rate reasonable. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Ludhiana Versus M/s Shivam Construction Co.</h3> The Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the assessment year 2001-02. It found the estimation of income based on ... - Issues involved: The appeal concerns the interpretation of provisions of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2001-02. The key issues are whether profit estimation for contractors at 10% of gross receipts is justified when proper books of account are not produced, and whether deeming provisions of section 44 AD can be applied beyond the statutory limit of Rs. 40 lakhs.Estimation of Income: The assessee did not maintain books of account as per the Act and filed returns based on estimated proof, lacking evidence for expense deductions. The Assessing Officer estimated income due to lack of evidence, but the Tribunal found disallowing entire expenses unjustified. The assessment must be based on material, and payments received by the assessee for authenticated contracts formed a valid basis for income estimation.Rate of Profit: Dispute arose over whether the net rate of profit should be 12% or 10%. The Tribunal considered past assessments in the assessee's case where a net rate of profit of 10% was applied, which had attained finality. The net rate of profit of 10% on receipts was deemed reasonable, as no special circumstances were highlighted for a higher rate. Deductions for salary and interest to partners were allowed within limits provided by the Act, but depreciation deduction was declined.Judgment: After considering the arguments, the Court found the Tribunal's discretion to be based on relevant considerations and free from legal infirmity. No substantial question of law arose for determination, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as wholly misconceived.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
