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 rules in favor of assessee, rejects Revenue's appeal, no trading addition needed</h1> <h3>Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-30(1), New Delhi. Versus M/s Vijendra Surendra Brothers, C/o M/s Raj Kumar & Associates, Chartered Accountants,</h3> Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-30(1), New Delhi. Versus M/s Vijendra Surendra Brothers, C/o M/s Raj Kumar & Associates, Chartered ... Issues:1. Discrepancy in gross profit rate between two periods.2. Rejection of books of account and addition of Rs.29,21,219.3. Reduction of addition to Rs.1 lakh by CIT(A).4. Justification for rejection of books of account.5. Comparison of gross profit rates with preceding years.Analysis:1. The case involved a challenge regarding the difference in gross profit rates between two periods, one before and one after the business became an Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account for the first period and applied a gross profit rate of 25%, resulting in an addition of Rs.29,21,219.2. The CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs.1 lakh. The Revenue appealed against this reduction, while the assessee cross-objected against the sustained addition. The main argument revolved around the rejection of books of account and the application of the proper gross profit rate.3. The Revenue contended that since the rejection of books of account was upheld, the reduction in the gross profit rate by CIT(A) was unjustified. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the rejection of books of account was unwarranted and that there was no basis for sustaining the Rs.1 lakh addition.4. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account, emphasizing the need for a reasonable gross profit rate even after rejection. The comparison of gross profit rates from preceding years showed that the rate disclosed by the assessee for the first period was better than the average of the preceding three years, justifying the deletion of the Rs.1 lakh addition.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, ruling that no trading addition was necessary after considering the comparison of gross profit rates and the nature of business in different periods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
