Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT upheld rejection of the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) because verifiable labour records, third-party confirmations, project-wise details and reconciliations were not produced, and major expenses rested on self-made vouchers with no credible support. Once the accounts were rejected, profit had to be estimated on a fair and reasonable basis, but the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's 8% rate excessive because it relied on non-comparable listed companies and a section 44AD benchmark that could not be mechanically applied beyond the prescribed turnover limit. Considering the nature of the sub-contract business, remote working conditions and defects in the records, profit was estimated at 5% of turnover.
The ITAT upheld rejection of the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) because verifiable labour records, third-party confirmations, project-wise details and reconciliations were not produced, and major expenses rested on self-made vouchers with no credible support. Once the accounts were rejected, profit had to be estimated on a fair and reasonable basis, but the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's 8% rate excessive because it relied on non-comparable listed companies and a section 44AD benchmark that could not be mechanically applied beyond the prescribed turnover limit. Considering the nature of the sub-contract business, remote working conditions and defects in the records, profit was estimated at 5% of turnover.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.