Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1976 (6) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were originally completed on taxable turnovers of Rs. 32,284.70, 35, 949.58 and Rs. 33,953.00 respectively. Before the assessment for asst. yr. 1973-74 was taken up an inspection of the appellant's premises had revealed records showing suppressed purchased and sales. The assessing authority made additions by way of revision for the first three assessments and in the course of original assessment itself for the last year. For the last year, the appellant had reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 16,413.49. The assessing authority considered the purchase omissions and added 25 per cent gross profit to arrive at the sales omission. He also made separate addition for sales omission discovered and make some small additions for further possible omi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls for revision of the assessments for the first three years under s. 16 of the At and resort to best judgment assessment under s. 12 of the Act the asst. yr. 1973-74. The claim that it is mere jottings or that the transactions mentioned therein were already accounted has been found to be clearly wrong. After going through the records, we are satisfied that there are clear omissions justifying additions revision. No doubt, separate additions have been made for purchase suppressions and sales suppressions. But they are usually of different varieties of goods. Besides, all that we are concerned is the reasonableness of the addition with reference to the materials found. Considering that the appellant has consistently kept the transactions bot....