Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Section 271B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 44AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mukesh Choksi, Mumbai vs Acit (Osd-1) Cen Rg 7, Mumbai on 13 December, 2017
5.3 I have carefully considered the observations of AO,
submissions of appellant and case laws relied on by appellant.
There is no dispute that appellant has entered into transaction of
Rs.42,04,11,241/- during the year which is more than the
auditable limit of Rs.1 Cr. Therefore, appellant is liable to get
his accounts audited. Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shri
Mukesh Choksi vs. ACIT (OSD)-2 CR 7 in ITA No.2299/M/2010
for Assessment Year 2002-03, ITA No.2300/M/2010 for
Assessment Year 2006-07 ITA No.2301/M/2010 assessment Year
2007-08 dated 11.02.2011 have held that as the transaction was
on principle to principle basis and not as agent, gross amounts
I.T.A. No.6064/Del/2019 4
received in connection with entry business have to be considered
for the purposes of ceiling under section 44AB. It is also seen
that the case laws relied on by appellant are on different set of
facts and therefore, not applicable to appellant's case.
1