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>High Court affirms Tribunal decisions on underinvoicing, expenditure deduction, and stock calculation.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HINDUSTAN MARBLE P. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HINDUSTAN MARBLE P. LTD. - [2010] 327 ITR 312 (Guj) Issues:1. Underinvoicing estimation discrepancy2. Deduction of unaccounted expenditure3. Discrepancy in stock calculationUnderinvoicing Estimation Discrepancy:The case involved two appeals arising from a Tribunal order. The primary issue was the correct estimation of underinvoicing by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld unaccounted sales at Rs. 68,72,970 but adjusted the underinvoicing rate to 36.41% instead of the 40% adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence and facts on record, concluding that the percentage adopted in such cases is a factual matter. The Tribunal's findings were deemed not to raise any legal questions.Deduction of Unaccounted Expenditure:The second issue concerned the deduction of unaccounted expenditure amounting to Rs. 8,39,836. The Assessing Officer allowed Rs. 3,50,184 based on seized material, while the assessee claimed the full amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) further estimated and allowed Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal ruled that once income is estimated for a period, corresponding expenditure must be estimated, deleting the disallowance sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal's decision was based on factual evidence, and no legal questions arose.Discrepancy in Stock Calculation:Regarding the discrepancy in stock, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,19,913, which the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained partially. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that the deficit in stock of slabs should be set off against the excess stock of tiles due to the mixing of inventory among three concerns. The Tribunal retained the addition partially at Rs. 19,725. This decision was also based on factual evidence, and no legal issues were identified.In conclusion, both appeals were dismissed by the High Court, affirming the Tribunal's decisions on the various issues raised in the case. The judgments were based on a thorough analysis of the facts and evidence presented, with no substantial legal questions arising from the Tribunal's orders.
TaxTMI 