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 upholds CIT(A)'s 4% N.P. rate over AO's 8%, rejects book results under section 145(3). (A)</h1> <h3>Asstt. Commr. of Income-tax, Circle IV, Jalandhar Versus M/s. Arihant Builders</h3> Asstt. Commr. of Income-tax, Circle IV, Jalandhar Versus M/s. Arihant Builders - TMI Issues Involved:1. Dispute over the N.P. rate applied on total receipts - 4% by CIT(A) vs. 8% by A.O.2. Rejection of book results by A.O. under section 145(3) despite audit under section 44AB.Analysis:Issue 1: Dispute over N.P. RateThe Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order directing the A.O. to apply a 4% N.P. rate instead of the 8% initially applied. The assessee contended that the N.P. rate was wrongly reduced by the CIT(A). The AO examined the books and found discrepancies, leading to the rejection of accounts under section 145(3). The AO relied on case laws to justify an 8% N.P. rate due to low turnover. The CIT(A) disagreed, reducing the rate to 4% considering material cost increases. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing lack of confrontation on case laws by the AO and material cost variations.Issue 2: Rejection of Book ResultsThe A.O. rejected the book results under section 145(3) due to inflated expenses and suppressed receipts. The assessee's books were audited under section 44AB, but discrepancies led to rejection. The CIT(A) upheld the rejection, providing ample opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting unverifiable wage registers and upheld the application of section 145(3) for accurate income reflection.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on both issues. The decision was based on detailed analysis of evidence, case laws, and the application of relevant sections of the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 