<?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>2022 (10) TMI 1251 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456429</link>
    <description>ITAT Bangalore rejected assessee&#039;s books of accounts under section 145(3) due to unrecorded transactions found during survey. The AO&#039;s increase in sales from Rs. 4.65 crores to Rs. 6 crores lacked basis, so actual reported sales were accepted. Tribunal applied 5% net profit estimation on turnover of Rs. 4,64,79,756, resulting in addition of Rs. 4,74,746 after considering disclosed profit of Rs. 18,49,242. Once books were rejected and profit estimated, no further disallowances under business income provisions were permitted. Unexplained cash credit addition was deleted as AO failed to issue notices to fixed depositors despite assessee providing names and addresses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2024 21:19:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=761591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 1251 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456429</link>
      <description>ITAT Bangalore rejected assessee&#039;s books of accounts under section 145(3) due to unrecorded transactions found during survey. The AO&#039;s increase in sales from Rs. 4.65 crores to Rs. 6 crores lacked basis, so actual reported sales were accepted. Tribunal applied 5% net profit estimation on turnover of Rs. 4,64,79,756, resulting in addition of Rs. 4,74,746 after considering disclosed profit of Rs. 18,49,242. Once books were rejected and profit estimated, no further disallowances under business income provisions were permitted. Unexplained cash credit addition was deleted as AO failed to issue notices to fixed depositors despite assessee providing names and addresses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456429</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>