Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
The ITAT Ahmedabad addressed the jurisdiction of the AO over a corporate assessee with income exceeding Rs. 30 Lakhs in metro cities. The tribunal confirmed that income, as per Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, includes losses. Referring to legal precedents, it was established that income encompasses losses. Therefore, the CBDT Instruction on jurisdiction applied to cases of both income and losses over Rs. 30 Lakhs. The DCIT's issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was deemed appropriate. The rejection of the assessee's books of account and estimation of profit at 10% of total receipts were upheld. The assessee's failure to provide proper accounts and evidence led to the rejection. The AO's estimation of income at 10% was considered reasonable, given the nature of the assessee's work and the prescribed rate under the Act. The tribunal declined to interfere with the AO's income estimation.
The ITAT Ahmedabad addressed the jurisdiction of the AO over a corporate assessee with income exceeding Rs. 30 Lakhs in metro cities. The tribunal confirmed that income, as per Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, includes losses. Referring to legal precedents, it was established that income encompasses losses. Therefore, the CBDT Instruction on jurisdiction applied to cases of both income and losses over Rs. 30 Lakhs. The DCIT's issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was deemed appropriate. The rejection of the assessee's books of account and estimation of profit at 10% of total receipts were upheld. The assessee's failure to provide proper accounts and evidence led to the rejection. The AO's estimation of income at 10% was considered reasonable, given the nature of the assessee's work and the prescribed rate under the Act. The tribunal declined to interfere with the AO's income estimation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.