TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commission income - CIT(A) has merely gone by the fact that the aforesaid receipts would be business income of the assessee keeping in view assessee s main objects - he has overlooked the fact that no estimation of income was made by Ld. AO against these transactions and the estimation was only with respect to sale purchase transactions. These items, as noted by Ld. AO, were separately credited to Profit Loss Account and hence, constitute separate stream of income for the assessee - a separate estimated income against these two items would certainly be required. We make the estimation @8% for both these streams of income. - I.T.A. No.6959/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) - - - Dated:- 26-7-2021 - HON BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order dated 26.03. 2013? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in enhancing the value of the bogus transactions by only ₹ 32,16,78,450/- as against ₹ 35,14,51,708/- requested by the Assessing Officer (in the remand report dated 12.08.2014) pertaining to the assessee's transactions with M/s. Vakrangee Software Ltd. ignoring that the assessee had shown transactions with the aforesaid company only at ₹ 42,28,78,000/- whereas M/s. Vakrangee Software Ltd. had admitted to have entered into transactions to the tune of ₹ 77,43,38,708/- with the assessee-company? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - not appreciating that by holding the contractual income to be part of the main business of dealing in computers he has contradicted his own previous finding on this issue that the assessee-company had failed to substantiate purchase / sale transactions shown in the return of income wherein he has also confirmed levy of commission income as a fixed percentage of such transactions / entries? (viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that since he has endorsed the levying of commission income towards purchase and sale transactions shown by the assessee company, by deleting the addition of contract income, the CIT(A) has effectively allowed set off of contractual i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the assessee on 04/10/2010. The assessee is stated to be engaged in the business of trading of computer systems and software etc. It also engaged in providing manpower support to various clients in the area of data processing etc. The assessee reflected sales / operational income of ₹ 6905.03 Lacs during the year. 3.2 During assessment proceedings, various details were called from the assessee, however, none attended and only part details were furnished. Notices issued u/s 133(6) to suppliers as well as major customer of the assessee did not elicit any satisfactory response. 3.3 On the basis of material on record, Ld. AO came to conclusion that the assessee did not carry out any actual sale / purchase transactions and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over. The Ld. AO also submitted that the goods purchased were sold at a loss of ₹ 302.08 Lacs and the assessee could not furnish any quantitative details. Further the nature of sales / purchase transactions was quite vague and amorphous. Various discrepancies were noted in partial details submitted by the assessee. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of assessee submissions and remand report concurred with Ld. AO s approach in rejecting the books and estimate the income earned by the assessee during the year. However, regarding estimation of 1% as made by Ld. AO, it was observed by Ld. CIT(A) that average net profit of previous four years was 0.52%. Therefore, the estimation was to be made 0.6% on total turnover including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) was more rational and plausible one. Therefore, no fault could be found in the said estimation. 6. So far as the contract receipts and commission income are concerned, Ld.CIT(A) has merely gone by the fact that the aforesaid receipts would be business income of the assessee keeping in view assessee s main objects. In the process, Ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the fact that no estimation of income was made by Ld. AO against these transactions and the estimation was only with respect to sale purchase transactions. These items, as noted by Ld. AO, were separately credited to Profit Loss Account and hence, constitute separate stream of income for the assessee. Therefore, a separate estimated income against these two items would certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
