2016 (7) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is in respect of Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. This appeal raises the following questions of law for our consideration : "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the taxable profits of the Project 'Prime Mall' by adopting net profit of 17.08% of the total gross sales? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction towards remuneration and interest, even in case of estimated net profit?" 3. Regarding Question 1: (a) The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of construction. During the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ber, 2009 the CIT(A) modified the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent it held that the total consideration received in respect of sales of 14 unit during the subject assessment year would be taxed at 40% as net profit of the total consideration in place of 65% in respect of sales of 14 units. The CIT(A) did not accept the respondent-assessee's contention that only 8% should be taken as net profit of the unaccounted turnover. This was in view of the fact that annexureL found during the course of the search indicated the net profit at 28.18%. (d) Being aggrieved, both the Revenue as well as the respondent-assessee carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its impugned order after considering the facts i.e. t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Mills Ltd. 124 ITR 408). In this case, we find that the net profit estimated at 17.08% is a very possible view on the facts found. (g) In the above view, question no.1 as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Regarding Question 2: (a) Mr. Kotangale, the learned counsel for the Revenue does not make any submissions in support of the question as framed. The only grievance of the Revenue he states is that the issue of quantification of deduction permissible under Section 40(b) of the Act with regard to the remuneration and interest paid to the partners should be restored to the Assessing Officer for the purposes of determination particularly keeping in view the cap therein. This is....