|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1077 Records
-
2014 (6) TMI 1019 - ITAT JODHPUR
Levy of penalty u/s 271AAB - undisclosed income surrendered during the search - non specifying the manner in which such undisclosed income has been derived and substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived - Held that:- Penalty is in respect of surrendered amount which was made during the search when the statement of the father of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was later on rectified by the assessee in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, subsequently, in post search investigations. On identical facts and circumstances of the case this Bench has also rendered similar decisions.
Under identical facts and circumstances we have taken similar view in many cases including the recent case of DCIT Vs. Shri Babulal Motavat [2014 (5) TMI 1179 - ITAT JODHPUR] there is no prescribed method to indicate the manner in which income was generated when the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in the Act itself when no income of the specified previous year represented “either wholly or partly’ which onus lay upon the assessee stood discharged. Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271AAA could not be imposed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1018 - SUPREME COURT
Grant of Bail - time limitation for filing charge sheet - bail granted solely on the ground that he was entitled to the benefit under the proviso appended to Section 167(2) CrPC of Criminal Procedure - extension of time to file the charge-sheet after expiry of the initial period and filing the same after certain period -
Held that:- Prior to the date of expiry of 90 days which is the initial period for filing the charge-sheet, the prosecution neither had filed the charge-sheet nor had it filed an application for extension. Had an application for extension been filed, then the matter would have been totally different. After the accused respondent filed the application, the prosecution submitted an application seeking extension of time for filing of the charge-sheet - In the instant case, the day the accused filed the application for benefit of the default provision as engrafted under proviso to sub- Section (2) of Section 167 CrPC the Court required the accused to file a rejoinder affidavit by the time the initial period provided under the statute had expired. There was no question of any contest as if the application for extension had been filed prior to the expiry of time.
A Court cannot act to extinguish the right of an accused if the law so confers on him. Law has to prevail. The prosecution cannot avail such subterfuges to frustrate or destroy the legal right of the accused. Such an act is not permissible.
There are no error in the order of the High Court in overturning the order refusing bail and extending the benefit to the respondent - appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1017 - ITAT BANGALORE
Capital gain - anticipated profit to tax - assessment in which year - land held by the assessee as stock in trade - Held that:- The conceptual foundation for this stock valuation principle are accounting principle of conservatism and business considerations of prudence, which have been noticed and approved by Hon'ble Courts above. It is for these reason that when market price of an item in the closing stock is less than its cost price to the business, the notional loss is allowed as a deduction but when market price of an item in the closing stock is more than its cost price to the business, the notional profit is not brought to tax. However, by giving the impugned directions, learned CIT(A) has ended up bringing that anticipated profit to tax.
What the assessee has got today is only a right to sell the 1,28,940.26 fts of constructed area in the Alexandria project and the profits, howsoever certain they may appear to be, will only fructify and be realized, and can even be quantified, only when this right is exercised in part or in full. That stage has not yet come, and until that stage comes, in our considered view, such profit cannot be taxed. Unlike in a case of a capital gain which arises on parting the capital asset at the first stage itself, it is a case of business transaction which is completed when the rights so acquired by the assessee are exercised; none can make profits by dealing with himself, as is the settled legal position in the light of the settled legal position in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT[1953 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]. It is for this reason that we are unable to uphold the action of the authorities below on the facts of this case.
The authorities below indeed erred in bringing to tax the anticipated business profits on assessee's entering into a development agreement with Menorah Realties Pvt Ltd in respect of the land held by the assessee as stock in trade - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1016 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Block assessment for undisclosed income u/s 158BD - mandatory requirement before initiating proceedings u/s. 158BD - Held that:- Referring to case of Manish Maheshwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] satisfaction recorded by the assessment officer that any undisclosed income belonging to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 is available. This recording of satisfaction is a mandatory requirement.
From the observations and law laid down in the case of Manish Maheshwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it is clear that recording of reason is a mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 158BD. That being so, we see no error in the order passed by the Tribunal that recording of reasons is mandatory provision.
As far as alternate submission to the effect that in the present case communications available do show that reason we are not impressed from the aforesaid contention. They are only communication of certain fact with regard to issue in question but there is no specific recording of reason for re-opening of the block under Section 158 BD. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (6) TMI 1015 - ITAT CUTTACK
Addition u/s 43B - deduction for deposit of electricity duty as per the directions of the Hon'ble Odisha High Court - Held that:- The word used u/s 43B are same as "actually paid". By depositing the amount in a designated account, it cannot be said that amount has actually been paid by the Assessee to the State Government. Whenever payment is made in respect of a liability, the receiver of the amount must be the person who has received the amount. The plain meaning of the expression “actually paid” means that the same should have actually been paid to the coffer of the State Government.
Depositing the amount with the third party, in our opinion, will not tantamount to actual payment made to the State Government. The Assessee may not have no lien on the account in which the amount has been deposited but that does not mean that the amount has actually been paid to the State Government. The amount is kept into “no-lien” account just to ensure the payment of the liability in the event of State Government succeeding in the pending litigation. This cannot be regarded to be the sum actually paid to the State Government for the electricity tariff. The Assessee has disputed the liability and went before the Hon'ble High Court. On the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the amount has been deposited by the Assessee in the designated “no-lien” account with the banker. This, by no stretch of imagination can be regarded to be the discharge of the liability by the Assessee. Actual payment of the amount means that the liability is actually discharged by the Assessee. - Decided against assessee.
Claim of deduction in respect of foreign traveling expenditure of the Directors - allowable busniss expenditure - Held that:- AO has disallowed 20% of the expenditure as the Assessee did not file before the AO the tour itinerary of the Directors, details of item-wise expenses incurred by each of the Directors on travel, stay and entertainment etc. Not only this, even though the Assessee has gone before the CIT(A) in respect of the said ground of appeal, but before the CIT(A) the Assessee did not press the said ground of appeal. Before us, even though the Assessee has taken the ground but did not place any cogent material or evidence for non-filing of which the AO had made the disallowance. The contention of the Assessee cannot be accepted that the AO has not asked for the evidences. If the Assessee had necessary evidences, he could have produced the same before the CIT(A) or before us. Under these circumstances, we dismiss the ground taken by the Assessee and confirm the order of AO. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1013 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Retrospectivity of amendment brought in section 40(a)(ia) - no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) required to be made as held by CIT(A) - belated deposit of TDS - Held that:- The Tribunal has followed its own judgment, by which, identical issue has been decided against the Revenue when the assessee, though deducted TDS before 31st March, 2005, relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, relating to expenditure claimed for the assessment year under consideration and paid the said amount to the Central Government before the due date of filing the return of income for A.Y. 2005-06, that expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. If it is so, the CIT(A) is justified in allowing claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. Hence, this appeal is also dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1012 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Pre-deposit - non-compliance with stay order - Held that:- On a query from the Bench the learned Counsel for the appellant failed to produce any evidence in respect of the list of matters or any stay order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. As the appellant failed to produce any order from the appellant authority, we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order of the Tribunal.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1011 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Pre-deposit - non-compliance with stay order - Held that:- The applicant has failed to comply with the stay order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1010 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGLORE
Appeals to Appellate Tribunal - remedy provided by the statute - Held that:- I do not propose to consider the grievance of the petitioner over the non-recording and non-communicating of the reasons to the petitioner. Such a grievance is required to be ventilated by filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal invoking Section 26 of the said Act. If the order in the anticipated appeal goes adverse, it shall also be o pen to the petitioner to invoke the remedy of filing a second appeal before this Court under Section 42 of the said Act.
On the ground of non-furnishing of the order sheet or of any other document also, the quashing of the show cause notice is not warranted. The petitioner ’s grievance can be redressed by directing the petitioner to submit an application in Form No.10 for the issuance of the certified copies of the documents required by her and by directing the respondent No.1 to issue the sought copies after collecting the necessary administrative cost from the petitioner. Needless to observe that it is also open to the petitioner to seek the inspection of the documents by making the necessary application under Regulation 16 of the said Regulations. The liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to avail of the remedy of filing an appeal invoking Section 26 of the said Act. It is made clear that all the contentions are kept open.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1009 - ITAT HYDERABAD
TPA - Comparable selection criteria - Held that:- Assessee provides software development services to its clients in various countries including its associated enterprises (AE) overseas, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Deduction u/s 10A - reducing communication and freight expenses from the export turnover only while computing deduction - Held that:- As relying on case of CIT Vs. Gemplus Jewellery [2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and ITO Vs Saksoft Ltd [2009 (3) TMI 243 - ITAT MADRAS-D] we direct the AO to exclude the communication expenses from export turnover as well as total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A
-
2014 (6) TMI 1008 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Best judgement assessment - Invoking provisions u/s 145(3) - application of profit rate of 3% on the estimated sale - AO has disbelieved the Account book submitted by the assessee mainly on the ground that sales are not supported by proper vouchers - Held that the sales are controlled and regulated by Excise Department and as there is no discrepancy in the stock register maintained and the Excise Department did not find any discrepancy - AO committed an error in disbelieving the Account book only on the ground that sales vouchers has not proper - there was no sufficient ground with the AO for invoking provisions u/s 145(3) - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2014 (6) TMI 1007 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 10A computation - up-linking charges deducted for computing export turnover u/s.10A - Held that:- Substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee as relyin on Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., & Others (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) wherein held charges both from the export turnover as well as from the total turnover for the purposes of computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Section 10A deduction allowable to the assessee in respect of profit making unit -Whether the tribunal was correct in failing to appreciate the substituted Section 10A of the Act by Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. 1.4.2001 that the deduction is to be allowed u/s.10A of the Act on the total income of the assessee without setting out the loss from non-profit making units? - Held that:- As considered by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., & Others reported in (2011 (8) TMI 845 - Karnataka High Court) and was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Deduction u/s.10A allowable in respect of income computed on the arms length price - Section 92(C)(4) applicability - Held that:- The error committed by the Assessing Officer was relying on Section 92(C)(4) to a case where Arm’s Length Price was determined by the assessee, whereas the said provision applies to a case where Arm’s Length Price was determined by the Assessing authority. That mistake has been corrected by the tribunal by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner as well as the assessing authority. No error committed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (6) TMI 1006 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A - reasonable disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- As relying on case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd vs. DCIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it is held that the provisions of Rule 8D shall apply w.e.f AY 2008-2009, prior to which the AO has to enforce the provisions of section 14A(1) by adopting the “reasonable basis on method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record.” In this backdrop, find that the disallowance u/s 14A in the appellant’s case being relatable to AY 2007-08 has to be worked out on a reasonable basis.
Section 145A applicability - addition on account of service tax - Held that:- As decided in M/s. Knight Frank (India) Pvt Ltd vs. Addl CIT [2013 (7) TMI 1033 - ITAT MUMBAI] the fact is that the assessee is a service provider company and patently, provisions of section 145A cannot be made applicable, because the provision was specifically introduced for the purposes of manufacture segment of business because section 145A(a)(ii) submitted before the CIT (A) mentions “.by the assessee being goods to be place of location & conditions as on the date of valuation are required to be included”.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1005 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Amount payable on account of principal by the company to the petitioning creditor after being given credit for ₹ 6 lakhs paid by it to the petitioning creditor - interest at 8% per annum on the reducing balance on and from the date of issuance of statutory notice till realisation - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that the matter has come at the post advertisement stage and in the event of any default in payment the company shall be wound up forthwith. The Official Liquidator will be at liberty to take possession of the books, records and documents so also the assets and properties of the company forthwith. If on the contrary payment is made and dues liquidated shall be permanently stayed.
The advertisement costs be paid by the company on liquidation of the sums mentioned above unless otherwise agreed to between the parties
-
2014 (6) TMI 1004 - ITAT CUTTACK
Grant of registration u/s 12AA - charitable activity - scope of section 2(15) - Held that:- No doubt, applicability of the provisions of Sec. 13(1)(c) cannot be looked into at the time of registration but CIT is bound to look into whether the objects of the trust/institution are charitable/religious or not. We do not find any irregularity or infirmity so far as jurisdiction of CIT is concerned in ascertaining the purpose of the object for which the institution has been established. We have also examined the submission of the ld. AR that the Assessee is engaged in activity of education and rendering education in the game of cricket and therefore, the proviso to Sec. 2(15) will not be applicable in the case of the Assessee. In our opinion, this submission of the Assessee, keeping in view the objects of the Assessee, does not have any leg to stand in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Sikhshana Trust‟s case [1975 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court]
It is not the case of the Assessee that it is running a normal schooling for sports. Therefore, we hold that the Assessee‟s activities do not fall within the term “education”.
CIT has used material behind the back of the Assessee for rejecting the registration and has not given him proper opportunity, we, therefore, with our above observation set aside the order of CIT and restore this issue to the file of CIT with the direction that the CIT shall look into the matter of registration of the institution afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the Assessee to prove that the objects for which the Assessee institution is created are genuine and are for charitable purposes. We may clarify that while considering the application of the Assessee for registration, the CIT should not apply proviso to Sec. 2(15) retrospectively. If he so choses that in view of the proviso inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2009 the activities carried on by the Assessee no more remains charitable as per the amended definition of Sec. 2(15), he may pass an order u/s 154 rectifying his order withdrawing the registration of the Assessee in case he grants registration to the Assessee w.e.f. 1.4.2009 by passing a speaking order. Appeal of the Assessee is statistically allowed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1003 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Winding up the respondent for non-payment of the alleged debt - invocation of other remedies such as arbitration and the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the debt - Held that:- No Judgment was cited before this Court in which it was held in absolute terms as a proposition of law that invocation of other remedies such as arbitration and the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the debt due as a ground to dismiss a petition for winding up of a debtor-company. Following the legal propositions deducible from the various authoritative pronouncements referred to above, a petition filed for winding up can be dismissed on one or more of the following grounds, namely, (a) where the debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one; (b) where the winding up petition is presented ostensibly for winding up order but really to exert pressure to pay the bona fide disputed debt; and (c) where even the company's inability to pay the debt is proved, but such winding up is not in the interests of its shareholders and creditors.
In the instant cases, the debt is not disputed, nay, admitted. Therefore, mere reference of the dispute to arbitration or initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act do not mean that the debt is disputed. Thus, where the debt is not disputed, the present company petitions for winding of the principal borrower and the co-borrower are very much maintainable and the same cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of the petitioner invoking other remedies for recovery of the debt.
the respondent is unable to point out any inconsistency between the provisions of Sections 433 and 434 of the Act and any of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The provisions of these two enactments operate in their designated fields, in that, while the SARFAESI Act enables the borrowers and other financial institutions registered under the said Act to initiate various measures for recovery of the loans advanced to the debtors, as noted above, Sections 433 r/w. Section 434 of the Act, vested a right in a creditor to seek winding up of a company for non-payment of an undisputed debt. Therefore, there is no scope for any inconsistency between the provisions of these two enactments. Indeed, no such inconsistency exists, as a fact. The only occasion on which such inconsistency may arise is when the property is sought to be liquidated by way of sale. Such a situation would not arise till the measures for sale of the property are initiated either by the Official Liquidator or by the creditor under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore hold that Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act does not bar the petitioner to institute and pursue the present winding up petitions.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Company Petition is admitted. The petitioner is permitted to issue advertisement in "The Hindu" and "Saakshi", the English and Telugu Daily Newspapers, respectively, of Hyderabad edition.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1002 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Non providing the worksheet against the confirmed demand in the de-novo proceedings - Held that:- We find that the Tribunal had given necessary direction in so far as if the adjudicating authority would fail to provide the worksheet of demand to the applicants, the adjudication proceedings may be completed based on examination of the reconciliation statement prepared by the appellant.Hence, for the proper appreciation of the Final Order dated 22.04.13 of the Tribunal, the direction at para-8 would be read with para-9.We do not want to pass any opinion regarding non-furnishing of the documents by the department as contented by the applicants in these applications.The ROMs are disposed of with the above directions.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1001 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - GTA Service - Whether the appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA service utilized in respect of transportation of their final product to the customers’ premises from the place of removal on FOR destination basis - the decision in the case of CCE GUNTUR Versus THE ANDHRA SUGARS LTD. [2013 (12) TMI 380 - CESTAT BANGALORE] contested, where it was held that till such amendment made effective from 1-4-2008 notwithstanding the clarification issued by the Central Government by way of their circular, transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for ‘clearance of final products from the place of removal’ was included in the definition of input service - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1000 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Tax on the interest received by the assessee on account of refund - Held that:- Section 244A provides, where refund of amount becomes due to the assessee under the Act, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to receive, in addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in the manner stipulated in the said Act. The said interest received by the assessee could be income in the hands of the assessee. Section 4 of the Act which is the charging section levies tax under the Act on such interest. The income received on 9.3.2004 is to be assessed for the years 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 which is previous year as the assessment year being 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005. When once the assessee receives the income by way of interest, the liability to pay tax under the Act arises. As that income is received prior to 31.3.2004, it has to be declared for the year commencing from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 and it has to be assessed during the period from 1 4.2004 to 31.3.2005. The date on which the order of the Tribunal is passed, though determined the rights of the parties, on that day, no income is received by the assessee. It is on receipt of the income, the liability to file return under the Act would arise.
The law provides for a reference to the civil court if the compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer, in the opinion of the land owner, is not sufficient and the reference court has jurisdiction to enhance the compensation and also to award interest on the said compensation. The said order is also subject to appeal and second appeal. In that context, it has been held that unless a competent court determines the liability to pay enhanced compensation and the compensation is paid in pursuance of such determination, the liability to pay tax on such compensation or the interest which is a component of interest would not arise. In the instant case, we are not dealing with any compensation. It is a simple case of payment of interest on the amount of refund which department found due to the assessee subject to the determination by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, no fault can be found in the order passed by the authorities. Decoded in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 999 - ITAT, PUNE
Additions towards on money receipts - Held that:- The principles of natural justice require that no one should be punished on the basis of presumption. The addition has been made on presumption that if the assessee was suppressing the sale and expenses for subsequent year, he must have suppressed sales and expenses for earlier year also. Such addition could not be confirmed as the same was not supported by cogent material and evidence. The above decisions were referred to in respect of block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. The ratio laid down in these cases is applicable to the case of the assessee. In view of above facts and circumstances and also in view of the ratio as relied on by the assessee, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was not justified in estimating on-money income in respect of all transactions of sale of plots, land and bungalows during F.Ys 2001-02 to 2007-08 relevant to A.Ys 2002-03 to 2008-09. Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on these accounts on estimate basis @ 50% of the recorded transactions was not unwarranted. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.
Unrecorded amount paid in respect of land at Gate No.150A, B, C - Held that:- The stand of the assessee has been that the registered purchase deed was not yet entered into. The Assessing Officer has not disputed/rebutted this contention of the assessee in the supplementary remand report dated 11.06.2010. In view of the above facts, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not recorded cash payments of ₹ 42,20,574/- in the books of accounts was rightly rejected by the CIT(A). This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side.
Addition on account of alleged unrecorded cash receipts - Held that:- It was not the case of the Assessing Officer that the amount received was over and above the consideration stated in the said agreement. Therefore even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the amount was actually received by the assessee, the same could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, as the same is in the nature of advance and the possession of the land is not given to the proposed purchaser and no sale deed was entered into in favour of the purchasers or any person nominated by the purchasers in this regard. In view of the above, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taxing the amount of ₹ 1,30,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on account of alleged undisclosed receipt. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side because normal receipts were found with the person who made the payment G.K. Jadhav in his statement recorded on 08.02.2008 stated that an amount of ₹ 1.30 crores was not received and two persons were only mediators and this amount was made for betterment of the property in question. There is nothing as a result of which took after 51 days of alleged transactions claimed by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, no efforts have been made to take action u/s.153C of the Act against the two persons in respect of alleged unaccounted payment of 1.30 crores. There is nothing consideration of above deal as finally in favour of alleged purchaser. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) on this point confirmed.
Addition on account of profit of extra work - Held that:- The actual work done in respect of 12 persons out of these 19 persons were included in the amount of actual work done of ₹ 38,26,284/- as per Page Nos. 30 to 40 of Annexure A-6. Further, it was pointed-out on behalf of assessee that other 7 persons including work of temple was only estimate for extra work which was not carried-out by the assessee. From the above facts, the CIT(A) concluded that the Assessing Officer incorrectly worked-out the amounts of extra work by considering amounts of estimates in respect of 12 persons and also amount of actual work done in respect of the said 12 persons. The Assessing Officer has also not considered that the 7 persons including the work for temple was not carried-out by the assessee and only estimate was worked out by the Engineer.
Difference between actual work done as noted in the seized diaries and receipts recorded in the books of accounts - Held that:- The stand of the assessee has been that the customers have actually paid ₹ 35,30,680/- in respect of the extra work. The stand of the assessee was found to be correct by the CIT(A) and he held that the actual amount received on account of extra work is in fact recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee company. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the assessee has earned undisclosed profit of ₹ 6,70,819/- and ₹ 2,68,583/- in A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2007- 08 respectively. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side.
........
|
