https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219266 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that advances should not be equated with turnover/receipts for the purpose of section 44AB. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) correctly interpreted the law and reversed the AO's decision to reject the books of accounts. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that treating advances as sales and adding notional income at 10% was incorrect. Consequently, the appeal by the department was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. en-us Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219266 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that advances should not be equated with turnover/receipts for the purpose of section 44AB. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) correctly interpreted the law and reversed the AO's decision to reject the books of accounts. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that treating advances as sales and adding notional income at 10% was incorrect. Consequently, the appeal by the department was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219266