Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)Section 29 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 292C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Indwell Constructions vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 March, 1998
from same defects/deficiencies i.e., the seized
documents are not speaking and the specific details of
nature of transaction, entity, project, date of
transaction, customers etc., are not available.
Therefore, the justification provided for estimation of
profit at a higher rate does not carry any weight.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the
Assessing Officer is erred in resorting to estimate the
profit on suppressed turnover @ 18% even though, it is
not a case for the Assessing Officer that the books of
accounts maintained by the appellant-company are not
susceptible for verification and which requires rejection
of books of accounts u/sec.145(3) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961. At this stage, we took support from the
decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Indwell Constructions vs., CIT (supra), where it has
held that, "the pattern of assessment under the Act is
given by section 29 which states that the income from
profits and gains of business shall be computed in
accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30
91
ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,
And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.
Vijaya Bhavani Constructions ... vs Dcit, Circle 3(3), Hyderabad, ... on 12 May, 2017
discrepancies in the books of accounts maintained by
the appellant company nor made-out a case for
estimation of higher profit on disclosed turnover.
Therefore, in our considered view, the rejection of
books of accounts and estimation of 14% profit on
disclosed turnover cannot be upheld. Further, it is well
settled principle of law by the decisions of various
Courts and also the decision of Coordinate Bench of
ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad in the case of
R.K.Township Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs., DCIT, Circle-
3(1), Hyderabad (supra), where the Tribunal has
estimated 8% profit on gross turnover. In the present
case, going by the profit declared by the assessee on
disclosed turnover, the assessee has disclosed profit
ranging from 7 to 8% for all these assessment years.
Once the assessee has declared 8% profit on disclosed
turnover, which is almost uniform or equal to the other
cases of similar nature as noted by the Coordinate
Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad, in our
considered view, unless the Assessing Officer makes-