Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1970 (11) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the amounts received by the assessee from M. E. S. Department. Later on, it came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer that the cost of materials supplied by the military authorities to be used in the building works by the assessee had not been disclosed by him and, therefore, notices under section 34 of the Act were issued to him. The orders of reassessment were made by adding the amounts representing the cost of materials supplied by the military authorities, which amounts were Rs. 23,234, Rs. 8,940, Rs. 29,636 and Rs. 46,424, respectively, for the four years mentioned above. The same percentages were applied to determine the net profits on these amounts and the amount of income-tax levied was accordingly enhanced. The assessee file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....luded before applying the flat rate to the assessee's receipts ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in applying the same flat rate to the price of stores supplied by the department as was applied to the other receipts of the assessee ? " The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the materials supplied by the M. E. S. Department were the property of that department and were to be used only in the construction of the works undertaken by the assessee. Those materials were to remain in the custody of the M. E. S. Department and the petitioner cannot be said to have made any profits with regard to them. According to the contracts, the cost of those materials was....