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 decision on profit rate for partnership firm in coke industry.</h1> <h3>M/s. Sheo Shakti Coke Industries Versus ACIT, CIRCLE – 37, Kolkata</h3> M/s. Sheo Shakti Coke Industries Versus ACIT, CIRCLE – 37, Kolkata - [2021] 91 ITR (Trib) 231 (ITAT [Kolk]) Issues Involved:1. Deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act.2. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act.3. Estimation of gross profit rate at 40% instead of 57.01%.4. Classification of the difference in profit as 'Income from other sources.'Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act:The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the coke industry, consistently claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. The firm claimed a deduction of Rs. 14,48,09,592/- for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied this deduction, citing anomalies in financial transactions, particularly the genuineness of sales, transportation costs, and purchases from related parties, which were deemed unverifiable and fabricated. The CIT(A) acknowledged the firm's consistent claim since A.Y. 2007-08 and its eligibility for the deduction but was unconvinced by the profits shown during the year. The CIT(A) estimated the gross profit at 40% of the total turnover, directing the difference to be taxed as 'Income from other sources.'2. Rejection of Books of Accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act:The AO and CIT(A) noted discrepancies in the assessee's financials, including sales, purchases, and transportation expenses. The CIT(A) rejected the book results under Section 145(3) of the Act due to these discrepancies, estimating the gross profit rate at 40%. The Tribunal upheld this action, noting that the assessee failed to produce books of accounts and other relevant materials to justify the profits earned during the year.3. Estimation of Gross Profit Rate at 40% Instead of 57.01%:The CIT(A) observed various discrepancies in the assessee's financials, including cash sales without reliable evidence, low manufacturing expenses, and high gross profit percentages compared to related concerns. The CIT(A) concluded that the books of accounts did not reveal the true and correct picture of the profits earned, estimating the gross profit rate at 40%. The Tribunal found merit in this finding, noting that the assessee's counsel failed to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings with any material support.4. Classification of the Difference in Profit as 'Income from other sources':The CIT(A) directed that the difference between the estimated gross profit rate of 40% and the disclosed rate of 57.01% be taxed as 'Income from other sources.' The Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the assessee's appeals for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, confirming the CIT(A)'s findings and the application of the gross profit rate of 40%.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the gross profit rate at 40% and classify the difference as 'Income from other sources.' The assessee's consistent claim for deduction under Section 80IC was acknowledged, but the discrepancies in financials led to the rejection of the book results and the estimation of a lower gross profit rate. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the assessee's failure to provide material support to counter the discrepancies noted.
TaxTMI 