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>Business income estimated after special audit (s. 142(2A)): profit rate on gross sales fixed at 8%, no further deductions</h1> The dominant issue was estimation of business income where the AO, following a special audit under s. 142(2A), and the CIT(A) applied profit at 15% of ... Estimation of income/ Profit - CIT(A) directed the AO to estimate the profit at 15% on gross sales as worked out by the Special Auditor in the Special Audit Report u/s. 142(2A) - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the income can be determined in this case at 8% on the gross sales shown by assessee at Rs. 8,58,96,664/-. In case the income so estimated is less than the returned income of Rs. 1,29,16,404/-, AO is directed to accept the income returned. Since the income is estimated at net basis, considering the facts of the case, no further deduction under depreciation and interest should be allowed on the estimated income. AO is directed to do accordingly. Revenue is contesting the deletions made by CIT(A) of expenditure on estimation basis and determination of profit at 15% on gross sales - Since these are on the same issue of estimation of income, no separate adjudication is required as income of 8% is considered reasonable on the facts of the case. Subject to observations made above in assessee’s case, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in Revenue’s contentions. AO is directed to determine the income at 8% on net on the sales declared or income returned in the proceedings u/s. 153A, whichever is higher. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether, on the facts, the taxable business income should be determined by estimating profit on gross sales, given unreliability/complexity of accounts and the limited reliability of the special audit recasting. (ii) What is the appropriate net profit rate to apply on the gross sales so as to compute income, and whether 15% as directed by the first appellate authority should be sustained. (iii) Whether, once income is estimated at a net profit rate, any further deduction for depreciation and interest should be allowed from such estimated income. (iv) Whether the Revenue's challenge to deletions/adjustments made by the first appellate authority survives once income is determined by a unified estimation method. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i) & (ii): Estimation of income; appropriate profit rate and sales base Legal framework (as applied by the Court): The Court proceeded on the basis that where books are not acceptable and the special audit-based recast accounts suffer from reliability concerns, income can be determined by estimation on turnover/sales. The Court also treated the special auditor's determination of sales as the workable base for estimation and adopted a 'thumb rule' approach consistent with an 8% rate referred to in the reasoning relied upon. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that, in a comparable group matter on similar facts, it was found that (a) the assessee's accounting system was complex, (b) primary supporting material such as bills/vouchers was not fully available (including due to seizure and passage of time), and (c) the special audit recasting involved presumptions and thus could not be fully relied upon. At the same time, the Court accepted that the books could not be accepted as correct, requiring a turnover-based estimate. The Court rejected adopting 15% merely on the premise applicable to civil contract cases, holding the activity to be in real estate (purchase, development and sale of land) and therefore requiring a more reasonable estimation. The Court considered 8% on sales as reasonable in light of the reliability concerns and the comparative analysis already undertaken in the related matter, and applied that approach here. Conclusions: The Court directed that income be computed by applying 8% net profit on the gross sales (taken at the sales figure shown by the assessee in the relevant proceedings). It further directed that if such 8% computation is lower than the income returned in the relevant return, the higher returned income must be accepted. Issue (iii): Allowability of depreciation and interest after estimation Legal framework (as applied by the Court): The Court treated the adopted percentage as a net basis estimate. Interpretation and reasoning: Because the income was directed to be determined at a net profit rate on sales, the Court held that allowing additional deductions would distort the intended net estimation. On the facts, it expressly declined further deductions once the net rate is applied. Conclusions: No further deduction for depreciation and interest is allowable from the income estimated at 8%. Issue (iv): Revenue's challenge to deletions/15% estimation by the first appellate authority Legal framework (as applied by the Court): Where income is ultimately determined by a single estimation method, disputes about individual additions/deletions underlying prior computations become unnecessary to adjudicate to the extent they merge into the estimation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the Revenue's grounds (relating to deletions made by the first appellate authority and the earlier 15% approach) were part of the same estimation controversy. Since the Court substituted the estimation with 8% on sales, separate adjudication of those component disputes was not required. Conclusions: The Revenue's contentions were rejected as lacking merit in view of the Court's determination that 8% on sales (or the higher returned income, if applicable) governs the computation.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found