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 →

ITO, Ward-3 (1) , Srinagar Versus M/s. East India Company

2016 (7) TMI 26 - ITAT AMRITSAR

Estimation of net profits - rejection of books of account - Held that:- Assessing Officer without pointing out any defect in sales and purchases, opening and closing stock rejected the books of account by just holding that assessee had not booked the expenditure whereas the learned CIT(A) has made a finding of fact that the expenditure was duly booked in the books of account and was reflected in the P&L accounts and payments thereof were made through bank account and in view of the above facts t .....

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 account is also not valid. The Assessing Officer without comparing earlier year results of the assessee applied 6% net profit rate without any basis and therefore, action of learned CIT(A) in deleting such addition is justified. Similarly, the assessee had declared the income on account of Duty drawback etc. separately in P&L account and therefore, the addition was not justified and learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same.- Decided in favour of assessee - Addition on rent payment - 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

ur of assessee - I.T.A. No. 509 (Asr)/2013 - Dated:- 6-5-2016 - Sh. A. D. Jain, Hon ble Judicial Member And Sh. T. S. Kapoor, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. S. S. Kanwal (DR.) For the Respondent : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.) ORDER Per T. S. Kapoor (AM) This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 13.05.2013 for Asst. Year 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are reproduced below. (i) On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

whether the Ld. CIt(A) was right in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of license fees amounting to ₹ 17,13,388/-. 3. The appeal was earlier dismissed as being defective vide Tribunal order dated 20.12.2013. However, on an application filed by Revenue the said order was recalled vide Tribunal order dated 12.09.2014 as Revenue had removed the defects/deficiency and the appeal was listed for hearing on merits. 4. At the outset, the learned DR invited our attention to assessmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on made by learned CIT(A), the learned DR submitted that Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings had observed that an expenditure of ₹ 17,13,388/- was not booked by assessee in its P&L account and for which Assessing Officer had information as per AIR information. It was submitted that learned CIT(A) had deleted these additions without looking into entire facts and without looking into facts that the books of account of assessee were not reliable in view of not re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

He submitted that learned CIT(A) after going thorough the complete records had rightly deleted the addition as the addition made by Assessing Officer was not based upon the facts as assessee had duly recorded the payments. 6. As regards the rejection of books the learned AR submitted that Assessing Officer had rejected the books of account merely holding that assessee had not recorded the expenditure of rent paid to Windsor Hotel Golf Course Road, Banglore whereas the fact remains that 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

ty drawback etc. was already included in the P&L account no separate addition was warranted and therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same. 7. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings rejected the books of assessee and estimated the net profits @ 6% by holding as under: 2.1 Ledger extracts of some of the accounts from the Books of account were produced which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ull particulars of expenditures and the source thereof during the relevant financial year. This is a serious flaw with the books of account since the total expenditures are not recorded which makes the entire version of books of account suspect. Hence the books of-account/ financial statements furnished by the assessee as well as the audit report is deficient given the fact that these do not reflect complete picture of contemporary record of financial events. Moreover the cash book was not furni .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee for the relevant assessment year than to ignore the books of account and the financial statements furnished by the assessee. After confronting the counsel with the nature of defects observed in the books of account, provisions of section 145(3) are invoked and the books of account/financial statements are rejected and further determination of income is restored to on the basis of the material on records in a manner provided under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For non-maintenance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ooks of account we find that Assessing Officer without pointing out any defect in sales and purchases, opening and closing stock rejected the books of account by just holding that assessee had not booked the expenditure whereas the learned CIT(A) has made a finding of fact that the expenditure was duly booked in the books of account and was reflected in the P&L accounts and payments thereof were made through bank account and in view of the above facts the rejection of books of account was no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssing Officer without comparing earlier year results of the assessee applied 6% net profit rate without any basis and therefore, action of learned CIT(A) in deleting such addition is justified. Similarly, the assessee had declared the income on account of Duty drawback etc. separately in P&L account and therefore, the addition was not justified and learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same. 9. As regards rent payments of ₹ 17,13,388/-, we find that assessee had been continuously incu .....

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