Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
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 ...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96208 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.