Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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 modifies net profit rate, deletes addition under Section 68, stresses fair assessment</h1> <h3>Sh. Farooq Ahmad Ahangar Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) Srinagar</h3> Sh. Farooq Ahmad Ahangar Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) Srinagar - TMI Issues Involved:1. Application of net profit rate on gross turnover.2. Rejection of book results.3. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Application of Net Profit Rate on Gross TurnoverThe assessee contested the application of an 8% net profit rate on gross turnover by the CIT(A), arguing that the assessee had furnished duly audited accounts and produced complete books of account and vouchers. The AO initially applied a 10% net profit rate based on a judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Shivam Construction Co. The CIT(A) reduced this rate to 8%, relying on a precedent where the ITAT Bench Amritsar upheld a 7% net profit rate for civil and road construction contractors. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not identify any specific defects in the books of accounts and failed to consider the assessee's past performance, which showed an average net profit rate of 3.89%. The Tribunal concluded that a 6% net profit rate on gross receipts would be reasonable, considering the past trading results and the nature of the business. Thus, ground no. 1 was partly allowed.Issue 2: Rejection of Book ResultsThe AO rejected the book results under Section 145(3) of the Act, estimating the income based on a higher net profit rate without pointing out material defects in the books of accounts. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must exercise this power prudently and not act arbitrarily. The Tribunal cited precedents, including the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Siamon Carves Ltd., to highlight that the AO must act fairly and not in a partial manner. The Tribunal found that the AO ignored the past history and comparable cases, leading to an unjustified estimation of income. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the application of a 6% net profit rate, finding it more reasonable and just.Issue 3: Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961The AO made an addition of Rs. 5,72,590/- under Section 68 on account of wages payable, arguing that the assessee could not establish the identity of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee argued that the addition was based on presumptions, as the trading results and the wages debited to the P&L account were accepted. The Tribunal noted that Section 68 is a deeming provision applicable when there is a credit entry in the books of accounts without a satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal found that the AO had accepted the trading results, and the wages were a liability payable, not monies received. Citing judgments from ITAT Jodhpur in ITO Vs Ashok Transport Co. and ITAT Delhi in Sanjay Sharma Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that Section 68 was wrongly invoked, as the liability represented wages payable, not unexplained cash credits. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 5,72,590/- was deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed both appeals, modifying the net profit rate to 6% and deleting the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the AO to act fairly and consider the assessee's past history and comparable cases before making estimations or additions. The order was pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2022.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found