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 Income Estimation, Rejects Revenue Appeal</h1> <h3>The Deputy CIT Circle-1, Khammam Versus M/s. Madhusudan Engg. Works, Palvancha</h3> The Deputy CIT Circle-1, Khammam Versus M/s. Madhusudan Engg. Works, Palvancha - TMI Issues:- Disputed estimation of income from main and sub-contract works- Rejection of books of account by AO- Consideration of depreciation, seigniorage charges, and interest/salary to partnerEstimation of Income from Main and Sub-contract Works:The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2008-09, disputing the estimation of income from main and sub-contract works. The AO rejected the books of account due to unsupported expenditure claims and estimated income at 12.5% from main contracts and 8% from sub-contracts. The CIT(A) directed to estimate income at 8% and 5% for main and sub-contract works, respectively, based on precedents and factors affecting profit ratio. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, justifying the estimation based on factual considerations and previous Tribunal orders.Rejection of Books of Account:The AO rejected the books of account as expenditure claims lacked proper vouchers. The Tribunal supported the AO's decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate books of account for reflecting correct profits. The rejection led to income estimation, considering factors like labour availability and market demand, justifying the need for estimation due to unreliable book results.Consideration of Depreciation, Seigniorage Charges, and Interest/Salary to Partner:Regarding seigniorage charges, the Tribunal directed the AO to reduce them from total contract receipts for profit estimation based on a Supreme Court judgment. Depreciation was denied on estimated income as per section 44AD, which disallows further deductions. However, interest and salary to partners were allowed subject to limitations under section 40(b), following Tribunal precedents and legislative changes. The Tribunal differentiated the case from past judgments, emphasizing the evolving legal provisions and their implications on deductions.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order based on previous Tribunal decisions and legal provisions. The detailed analysis covered issues of income estimation, book rejection, and deductions, ensuring compliance with relevant laws and precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
