https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410924 The appeal was admitted despite a 22-day filing delay, which was condoned. The Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchases, upheld by CIT(A) but reduced. ITAT found no justification for rejecting accounts due to unverified purchases. CIT(A) rejected accounts under section 145(3), but ITAT disagreed. CIT(A) estimated gross profit at 25%, higher than declared, based on past history. ITAT remanded the case to determine a finalized past years' gross profit rate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with a remand for determining the gross profit rate based on finalized past years' results. en-us Tue, 03 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Aug 2021 08:51:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410924 The appeal was admitted despite a 22-day filing delay, which was condoned. The Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchases, upheld by CIT(A) but reduced. ITAT found no justification for rejecting accounts due to unverified purchases. CIT(A) rejected accounts under section 145(3), but ITAT disagreed. CIT(A) estimated gross profit at 25%, higher than declared, based on past history. ITAT remanded the case to determine a finalized past years' gross profit rate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with a remand for determining the gross profit rate based on finalized past years' results. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410924