Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee declared purchases from parties issuing bogus purchase vouchers without actual transactions, merely laundering unaccounted money to claim deduction u/s 80HHC. The Assessing Officer treated 25% of unverifiable purchases as income from other sources, alleging inflation of export profits. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The ITAT held that rejection of books u/s 145(3) requires specific conditions, which were not satisfied. The AO did not follow the proper procedure or point out defects in accounts. The ITAT relied on judicial precedents to conclude that no addition can be made if the declared gross profit rate is higher than the rate prescribed by the jurisdictional High Court in such cases. The assessee's gross profit rate was found reasonable based on comparable cases and the partner's statement recorded during the search. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's ground and deleted the addition of 25% of unverifiable purchases.
The assessee declared purchases from parties issuing bogus purchase vouchers without actual transactions, merely laundering unaccounted money to claim deduction u/s 80HHC. The Assessing Officer treated 25% of unverifiable purchases as income from other sources, alleging inflation of export profits. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The ITAT held that rejection of books u/s 145(3) requires specific conditions, which were not satisfied. The AO did not follow the proper procedure or point out defects in accounts. The ITAT relied on judicial precedents to conclude that no addition can be made if the declared gross profit rate is higher than the rate prescribed by the jurisdictional High Court in such cases. The assessee's gross profit rate was found reasonable based on comparable cases and the partner's statement recorded during the search. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's ground and deleted the addition of 25% of unverifiable purchases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.