Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The ITAT Jodhpur allowed admission of additional evidence u/r 46A of IT Rules by CIT(A) to delete addition on merits. The tribunal found merit in the evidence provided by the assessee regarding sales of bullion, criticizing the AO for not seeking further details. The revenue's objection to non-admission of evidence due to lack of documentation was dismissed. The CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence, rejecting the department's objection. Regarding unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, the appellant explained deposits as sale proceeds from bullion trading, earning a 1% commission. The tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to apply a net profit rate of 1% on total deposits, considering the nature of the business and standard accounting principles. CIT(A) applied a net profit rate of 1.2% to cover possible revenue leakages, which was deemed fair and reasonable. The tribunal upheld the application of the 1.2% NP rate for estimating commission earned on bullion sales.
The ITAT Jodhpur allowed admission of additional evidence u/r 46A of IT Rules by CIT(A) to delete addition on merits. The tribunal found merit in the evidence provided by the assessee regarding sales of bullion, criticizing the AO for not seeking further details. The revenue's objection to non-admission of evidence due to lack of documentation was dismissed. The CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence, rejecting the department's objection. Regarding unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, the appellant explained deposits as sale proceeds from bullion trading, earning a 1% commission. The tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to apply a net profit rate of 1% on total deposits, considering the nature of the business and standard accounting principles. CIT(A) applied a net profit rate of 1.2% to cover possible revenue leakages, which was deemed fair and reasonable. The tribunal upheld the application of the 1.2% NP rate for estimating commission earned on bullion sales.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.