TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India Ltd. and M/s. PGF Ltd. on account of land development work and thereby deleting the addition made on account of 4% commission on debit and credit entries regarding providing accommodation entries to the above said companies ; and ii) deleting the addition made in respect of TDS amount claimed from M/s PACL India Ltd. And M/s. PGF Ltd. which was the real income of the assessee company in view of the fact that the assessee had not repaid the amount of TDS to PACL India Ltd. and PGF Ltd. 2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is claimed to have undertaken land development work for PACL India Ltd. The AO doubted the claim of the assessee and held that the TDS deducted by the above company is the only actual income of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er to the AO for considering the GP of Companies carrying similar work. 4. The Ld. AR on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order and pointed out that he has followed the result of immediate preceding year under similar facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. AR submitted further that nothing adverse was found in the books of accounts of the assessee, all entries tallied with PACL Ltd. and there was no confrontation of entries with the assessee. He submitted that the AO without rejecting the books of accounts had estimated the income of the assessee. He submitted further that the authorities are also not justified in making other additions especially when the income has been estimated. In support he placed reliance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfracon Pvt. Ld. and M/s. Best Propmart Pvt. Ltd. wherein the AO had accepted the results shown by these assessee companies and made additions only for the vouchers not readily available. He noted further that in case of group company M/s. Rishikesh Properties Pvt. Ltd. for the earlier assessment year 2006-07 the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the order on an identical issue and the Tribunal has also dealt with the same. Similarly the issue has also been dealt with by the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal in the cases of M/s. P.P. Buildmart (P) Ltd. for assessment year 2006-07 and in the case of M/s. Jatadhari Builders Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2006-07. It has been noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that on identical issue in the case of M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sult of past years under similar facts is the best guidance for estimating the income. Under these circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to take assistance of the immediately previous assessment year to estimate the profit of the assessee. There is no dispute that in the assessment year 2007-08 on identical issue in the cases of M/s. Rupa Promotors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., RSM Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rishikesh Properties Pvt. Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made in respect of TDS amount and addition made on account of commission has been restricted to 2.24% of the gross receipt shown in the profit and loss account from M/s. PACL India Ltd. and others. The revenue has not questioned this first a....