https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85074 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s rejection of the assessee's books of account u/s 145(3) as inaccurate, unreliable, and incapable of reflecting true financial affairs. It concurred with CIT(A)'s estimation of profit based on average net profit earned on regular receipts, deeming the methodology logical. Separate additions u/ss 37(1) and 40A(3) were rightly deleted once books were rejected and income estimated on gross receipts, relying on Madras HC's decision in CIT v. Amman Steel. For AY 2021-22, granting telescoping benefit against cash seized was justified as the assessee offered substantial additional income for prior years exceeding seized cash. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2025 08:21:45 +0530 Wed, 22 Jan 2025 08:21:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85074 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s rejection of the assessee's books of account u/s 145(3) as inaccurate, unreliable, and incapable of reflecting true financial affairs. It concurred with CIT(A)'s estimation of profit based on average net profit earned on regular receipts, deeming the methodology logical. Separate additions u/ss 37(1) and 40A(3) were rightly deleted once books were rejected and income estimated on gross receipts, relying on Madras HC's decision in CIT v. Amman Steel. For AY 2021-22, granting telescoping benefit against cash seized was justified as the assessee offered substantial additional income for prior years exceeding seized cash. Highlights Income Tax Wed, 22 Jan 2025 08:21:45 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85074