https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235363 The court concluded that the Assessing Officer (AO), Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) did not adequately consider the rejection of the account books under section 145(1) of the Income-tax Act. The court found that the reasons provided by the AO were primarily based on a lower profit ratio compared to the previous year, necessitating a thorough examination of the account books. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the appellant, with directions to consider all merits and facts of the case within six months. en-us Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235363 The court concluded that the Assessing Officer (AO), Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) did not adequately consider the rejection of the account books under section 145(1) of the Income-tax Act. The court found that the reasons provided by the AO were primarily based on a lower profit ratio compared to the previous year, necessitating a thorough examination of the account books. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the appellant, with directions to consider all merits and facts of the case within six months. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235363