<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (8) TMI 587 - ITAT, HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215904</link>
    <description>Where a joint venture executed most work through sub-contractors and the disclosed margin was abnormally low, the books could be rejected as unreliable and income estimated on a reasonable percentage basis. The ITAT accepted rejection of the accounts on the facts, but held that the higher estimate made by the first appellate authority was excessive and that 10% of gross receipts was a fair rate. It also held that the joint venture&#039;s assessment as an association of persons was not disturbed on the existing record, while the treaty-based non-discrimination claim affecting the applicable tax rate required fresh examination and was remitted for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 587 - ITAT, HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215904</link>
      <description>Where a joint venture executed most work through sub-contractors and the disclosed margin was abnormally low, the books could be rejected as unreliable and income estimated on a reasonable percentage basis. The ITAT accepted rejection of the accounts on the facts, but held that the higher estimate made by the first appellate authority was excessive and that 10% of gross receipts was a fair rate. It also held that the joint venture&#039;s assessment as an association of persons was not disturbed on the existing record, while the treaty-based non-discrimination claim affecting the applicable tax rate required fresh examination and was remitted for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>