Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal upholds decision on income tax assessment, reduces net profit, and adjusts closing stock value.</h1> The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to reduce the net profit of the assessee by Rs. 97,11,023. ... Net profit estimation - CIT-A granted substantial relief to the assessee and sustained the addition towards difference in closing stock - Held that:- The survey team itself had made physical valuation of inventories and had arrived at the value as on 30.3.2010 at ₹ 34,71,533/- only. The difference between purchases and sales thereafter worked out to ₹ 23,61,057/- (35,25,479-11,64,422) as observed by both the AO and CIT-A would lead to further increase in closing stock by ₹ 23,61,057/-. Total closing stock as on 31.3.2010 should be ₹ 58,32,590/- as against the closing stock of ₹ 54,26,130/- declared by the assessee in the balance sheet filed in support of return of income, thereby leading to a difference of ₹ 4,06,460/- which has been rightly added by the CIT-A. The survey team valued the closing stock as on 30.3.2010 based on physical verification of inventories at ₹ 34,71,533/-, whereas the closing stock that was reflected in the computerized profit and loss account was ₹ 1,52,97,868/-. Hence the computerized statement in the instant case cannot be relied upon as it contained deficiencies due to system getting corrupted. Assessee had also given the statement on oath at the time of survey that the total income for the whole year would be approximately ₹ 35 lacs for which due taxes would be paid by him. The returned profit by the assessee was ₹ 34,63,940/-. Hence there is no much variation in the approximation done by the assessee on the date of survey vis a vis the actual profit. We also find from the Gross Profit and Net Profit Chart of earlier years that assessee had reported higher GP and NP during the year under appeal despite the huge reduction in turnover. The ld CITA had rightly sustained the addition only towards difference in closing stock and the same does not require any interference.- Decided against revenue Issues Involved:1. Justification of reducing the net profit of the assessee by Rs. 97,11,023/-2. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 19613. Determination of the accurate closing stock valueIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of Reducing the Net Profit of the Assessee by Rs. 97,11,023/-:The core issue in the appeal was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in reducing the net profit of the assessee by Rs. 97,11,023/-. The assessee, engaged in trading electrical goods, declared a total income of Rs. 34,63,940/- for the Assessment Year 2010-11. During a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, discrepancies were found in the computerized books of accounts. The profit as per books on the date of the survey was Rs. 2,18,47,252/-, but the taxable income was calculated to be Rs. 1,53,26,690/- after necessary adjustments. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted significant expenditures claimed by the assessee post-survey, leading to a declared profit of only 4.22% as against the surveyed profit of 26.84%. The AO rejected the books under Section 145(3) and re-estimated the profit, adding back Rs. 1,01,17,483/- to the total income.2. Rejection of Books of Accounts Under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The AO rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to perceived inaccuracies and incompleteness. The assessee argued that the data extracted from the computer during the survey was corrupt and incorrect, particularly the closing stock value. The AO, however, found minimal differences in the figures of purchase and sale between the books as on the survey date and those supporting the return, suggesting that the claim of corrupt data was unsatisfactory. The AO observed that the books did not present a true and correct picture, leading to the rejection of the books and re-estimation of profit.3. Determination of the Accurate Closing Stock Value:The CIT(A) reviewed the AO's findings and the assessee's explanations. The CIT(A) noted that if the actual figures of closing stock, as determined by the survey team (Rs. 34,71,533/-), were considered, the net profit would be significantly lower than estimated by the AO. The CIT(A) found that the closing stock should have been Rs. 58,32,590/- based on post-survey purchases and sales, but the assessee declared it as Rs. 54,26,130/-, leading to a difference of Rs. 4,06,460/-. The CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 4,06,460/- towards the difference in closing stock but deleted the balance addition, granting substantial relief to the assessee.Final Judgment:The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The ITAT found that the computerized profit and loss account and balance sheet impounded during the survey contained deficiencies, supporting the assessee's claim of corrupted data. The ITAT noted that the survey team’s physical valuation of the closing stock was Rs. 34,71,533/-, and the difference between purchases and sales post-survey justified an additional closing stock of Rs. 23,61,057/-. Thus, the total closing stock should be Rs. 58,32,590/-, leading to a justified addition of Rs. 4,06,460/-.The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming that the CIT(A) correctly sustained the addition of Rs. 4,06,460/- towards the difference in closing stock and deleted the remaining addition of Rs. 97,11,023/-.Order Pronounced:The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the court on 23.05.2018.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found