Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ACIT, Circle-1, Eluru Versus Dwaraka Tirumala Constructions And Vice-Versa

2016 (5) TMI 1140 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM

Rejection of books of accounts - Computation of gross business receipts - Held that:- A.O. rejected the books of accounts and estimated income at 10%. The Ld. CIT(A) reduced it to 6.5% without recording any reasons, simply by following the Tribunal decision, which is not relevant. In the case of estimation, of facts and circumstances of each case has to be examined. In the present case after considering the assessment order as well as CIT(A) order and also details filed before us, we are of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t able to substantiate before us to show that the deposits made by the assessee are for the purpose of business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the interest income received by the assessee from the bank deposits is income from business. Therefore, we hold that interest received by the assessee is ‘income from other sources’ and we accordingly reverse the order of the CIT(A).

Excess claim of expenditure under head “Seigniorage & Sales Tax” disallowed - Held that:- The books of accou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

permissible on the basis of rejected books and as such the impugned addition made by the A.O. is set aside and allowed the claim of the assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 10&11/Vizag/2013, C.O. Nos. 35&36/Vizag/2013 - Dated:- 19-4-2016 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri M.N. Murthy Naik, DR For the Respondent : Shri M. Ganga Raju Sarma ORDER Per V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member These appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

77; 57,83,290/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and after following the due procedure, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. has noted that the assessee was asked to file information in respect of details of expenditure such as books of accounts, bills, vouchers and purchase .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The assessee has furnished certain vouchers and bills under the above heads. On verification of the same by the A.O., he has found that the vouchers filed by the assessee are self-made lacking full details and came to a conclusion that vouchers are not fully verifiable. The A.O. further noted that according to the assessee, he has incurred for wages to the workers amounting to ₹ 2,87,81,707/- and salaries to staff amounting to ₹ 32,91,750/-. When the A.O. asked for wage registers an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal before the CIT(A). It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the estimation made by the A.O. is excessive and the A.R. of the assessee relied on the case of DCIT Vs. M. Rama Rao in ITA No.184/Vizag/2010 dated 27.12.2010 of ITAT Vizag Bench and submitted that the addition made by the A.O. may be reduced. The Ld. CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee, he has observed that the book results adopted by the assessee is too low. But at the same time, estimation adopted by the A.O. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2009-10 and directed the A.O. to adopt 6.5% on gross business receipts instead of 10% adopted by him. We find that the assessee is a civil contractor and is not able to produce bills and vouchers in respect of various expenditures incurred. Under these circumstances, the A.O. rejected the books of accounts and estimated income at 10%. The Ld. CIT(A) reduced it to 6.5% without recording any reasons, simply by following the Tribunal decision, which is not relevant. In the case of estimation, of fa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of interest receipts on FDRs for assessment year 2008-09 of ₹ 3,61,934/-, the A.O. has treated it as an income from other sources . On appeal, it was submitted before the CIT(A) that the deposits were made by the assessee for the purpose of bank guarantee to obtain the tenders and submitted that it has to be treated as a business income. The Ld. CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee, he has treated it as a business income. The assessee is not able to substantiate before us .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ources. 7. The ground raised by the department in respect of Seigniorage & Sales Tax relating to assessment year 2009-10, the A.O. has noted from the profit & loss account of the assessee as expenditure under head Seigniorage & Sales Tax of ₹ 56,42,897/-. However, from the TDS certificates issued by the deductors (Government departments), it is noticed that actual recoveries under the heads including income tax of ₹ 10,27,693/- are at ₹ 56,06,025/-. Thus the excess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version