2015 (3) TMI 840

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Proxy for Mr Rajesh Mahna, Adv. ORDER The Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as 'ITAT') dated 4.9.2014 in ITA No. 1024/Del/2010 and urges that the N.P. rate found in the present case, i.e., 2.5% was erroneous. The brief facts are that the assessee reported its income for AY 2006-07 and claimed the benefit of Section 44AD ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... accepted its contentions, the ITAT should have maintained the AO's determination of the net income at 8% since that was what in fact the assessee had claimed in the first instance and that the ITAT has not given sufficient reasons for reducing the said net profit margin. This Court notices that the ITAT's rationale for imposing the 2.5% net margin was, firstly, the rejection of books o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt of profit rate on page 41 of the paper book, which was also made available to the Assessing Officer vide its letter dated 5.12.2007. From this chart of profit rate, it can be seen that the assessee has shown profit rate of 2.38% for the instant year as against 2.49% for the assessment year 2005-06 and 5.27% for the assessment year 2004-05. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances pre....