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 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.