Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The ACIT, Central Circle-III, Ludhiana Versus M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

2015 (11) TMI 1434 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

Rejection of books of accounts - G.P. addition - sale of material treated as profit for working out the Gross Profit on contract receipts by AO - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that:- Held that:- CIT(Appeals) found that assessee had produced Hot Mix material from its plant for its contract work and the excess production was sold to outside parties leading to turnover of ₹ 43,06,319/- on this account. This finding of fact recorded by ld. CIT(Appeals) have not been rebutted through any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ial sold should have been deducted from the turnover in order to arrive at the profit of the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, on the total turnover of ₹ 43,05,319/- of Hot Mix material correctly directed to apply profit rate for the purpose of making addition, therefore, rest of the addition of ₹ 39,61,815/- was rightly deleted. There is no error in the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 843/Chd/2014 - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - Bhavesh Saini, JM A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been treated as profit for working out the Gross Profit on contract receipts. The Assessing Officer has pointed out several defects in maintenance of the books of account and accordingly rejected the same under section 145(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had shown gross profit of ₹ 45,50,072/- on the total work done of ₹ 10,88,77,849/- which included an amount of ₹ 43,06,319/- by way of sale of materials. The Assessing Officer concluded .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e briefly explained that Assessing Officer made this addition wrongly after considering the entire value of sale of Hot Mix material of ₹ 43,06,319/- as income without deducting cost of material sold. The Assessing Officer should have applied the profit rate on the sale value of the material sold to ascertain the cost of material sold before working out the gross profit on sale of such Hot Mix material. It was submitted that Assessing Officer has made a wrong calculation whereas Assessing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cepted the contention of the assessee and deleted part addition as above. His findings in para 4 of the appellate order are reproduced as under: "I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer and the arguments of the AR on the issue during assessment as well as appellate proceedings. It is seen that the appellant had not put forth any credible arguments in support of his claim of maintaining proper books of account and as against that the Asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng the appellate proceedings. However the AR of the appellant has pointed out that entire amount of material sales have been reduced from the gross profit which meant that the entire sales were representative of gross profit and there was no cost of materials sold. It is seen that the assessee had produced hot mix material from its plant for its contract work and the excess production was also sold to outside parties leading to turnover of ₹ 43,06,319/- on this account. It is not possible .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oss profit shown by the assessee on its normal contract receipts. The gross profit so worked out comes to 3.86% which compares favourably with the working done by the Assessing Officer. There is no reason why the cost of material produced by the assessee for selling the hot mix should be treated as profit itself. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 39,61,815/- is directed to be deleted." 4. The ld. DR relied upon order of the Assessing Officer, on the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version