TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income of the assessee Rs. 53,44,390/-. 2) The Id. Authorities are not correct in making assessment u/s. 144 of I.T. Act and assessing the income @8% of total receipt when the assessee has appeared before the Authorities time to time and also submitted required details by the Authorities. 3) The Id. AO has not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and assessed the income u/s. 144 of the 1.T. Act which is totally illegal and bad in law. 4) The Id. AO is not justified in stating that the assessee has not submitted sub-contract details when assessee has filed a copy of contract and all other details about sub-contract. 5) The Id. AO has not made the computation correctly and not correct in considering the income of Rs. 41,32,4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee claimed TDS on gross contract receipts of Rs. 3,01,24,661, as against the gross receipts taken by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,49,75,822, and, therefore, vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 26/03/2009, set-aside the assessment order dated 31/12/2007, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to modify the assessment accordingly. 6. Meanwhile, the learned CIT(A), vide his order dated 25/03/2010, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the issue of addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. With respect to the addition made on estimation of net profit at Rs. 11,98,065, the learned CIT(A) held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 144 r/w section 254 of the Act vide order dated 08/09/2016, determining income of Rs. 53,44,392, which included addition of Rs. 24,09,973, @ 8% on gross receipt of Rs. 3,01,24,661. The assessee being aggrieved with the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), is in further appeal before the learned CIT(A). 8. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The operative part of the order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced below:- "5.8.3 The appellant has challenged the computation of income done by the AO. It has been claimed that if at all, net estimated profit @ 8% of receipts of Rs. 3,01,24,661/- should only be considered as total income and the initial computation of income at the time of original assessment should no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Name of the Party Work Receipts Commission Commission in Percentage M/s. D.V. Mohite and Company 22,77,495 71,224 3.127% M/s. Sonal Construction Pvt. Ltd. 1,45,43,722 7,54,421 5.187% 10. The assessee had declared work receipts of Rs. 1.33 crore and other income Rs. 16.45 lakh in its P&L Account. However, the details of the TDS credit claimed by the assessee on the payment received towards work contract shows the gross receipts of Rs. 3.01 crore. The assessee instead of offering the total receipts of Rs. 3.01 crore in its P&L Account, had offered Rs. 1.33 crore as work receipts and commission income of Rs. 8.38 lakh from sub-contracting the main contract of Rs. 1.68 crore awarded to the assessee firm. The assessee, before ....