site stats

Cit vs aggarwal engg co. 302 itr 246 p&h hc

WebOn appeals the Court observed that four categories of cases : (a) cases in which computer software was purchased directly by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer ; (b) cases where resident Indian companies were distributors or resellers, purchasing computer software from foreign, non-resident … WebAggarwal Engg. Co. (2008) 302 ITR 246 (P & H). 6. the CIT(A) regarding estimation of the net profit at 8%. The ITAT has, in fact, upheld the order of the CIT(A). If that is indeed the position, the question of adding the further sum as unexplained credit was not sustainable particularly in view of the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in

Addition us 68 for cash deposited in bank during demonetization deleted

Web11. Expenses on VRS are allowable in year of payment (CIT vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. (264 ITR 180 (Born) (Also refer to section 35DDA inserted by Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1-4-2000). 12. The word “sum” in section 40A (3) refers to single payment – CIT vs. Kothari Sanitation and Tiles P. Ltd. (282 ITR 117 (Mad). 13. WebMay 30, 2013 · Aggarwal Engineering Co.; 302 ITR 246(P&H), where it was observed that once the net profit rate was applied, no further addition was called for in respect of purchase and introduction of cash. (c) CIT v. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar; 270 ITR 314; (d) CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar; 229 ITR 229 (All); and brake repair shops in little rock arkansas https://509excavating.com

Addition us 68 for cash deposited in bank during

WebMar 23, 2024 · The assessee did not challenge the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) and the addition made by Ld. CIT(A) above to the profit of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) forgot to consider that if he wanted to make addition on account of peak credit on account of M/s. Hanuman Traders, whether theory of peak credit would apply in the ... WebCreating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: WebCIT(A). The taxpayer was under bonafide belief that it was eligible to set-off the losses of the erstwhile private limited company and therefore, upon setting off of such losses its total … haflinger pocahontas 45

Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence P. Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 432 ITR ...

Category:AO cannot Simultaneously Reject & Rely Audited Books …

Tags:Cit vs aggarwal engg co. 302 itr 246 p&h hc

Cit vs aggarwal engg co. 302 itr 246 p&h hc

Janak Raj Govt. Contractor,, ... vs Assessee on 4 June, 2012

WebJan 11, 2024 · The A.O may proceed under Section 145(3) under any of the following circumstances: Webthe case of CIT vs. Aggarwal Engg. Co. (Jal) reported in 302 ITR 246 (P&H), is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and each case has to be seen in its own facts and circumstances. 7. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and argued that the accounts of the

Cit vs aggarwal engg co. 302 itr 246 p&h hc

Did you know?

WebThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J. R. D. Aggarwal & Company-called for the sake of brevity 'the assessees-are a registered firm having their place of business at … WebJun 23, 2013 · CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) This decision of the SC has been followed by the Bombay, Delhi, Madras, Punjab & Haryana, Gujarat High Courts and a number of Tribunals in the country. In one case, where the view of the Assessing Officer had also been expressed by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, revision under Section 263 was held to …

WebCIT (2006) 287 ITR 209) Assessing Authority has no power to entertain a claim made by assessee otherwise than by filing a revised return (Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 … WebApr 4, 2024 · The Ld. CIT (A) has taken the purchases and sales in the appellate order and the difference of the same was taken as undisclosed profit of the assessee in a sum of …

WebGenuineness of Transactions and Cardinal concepts of taxation By CA. Pankaj G. Shah F. WebMay 18, 2024 · CIT (123 ITR 907) (All)] 1.2 Penalty for concealment cannot be levied, where the assessee was not even asked to justify his claim and penalty was levied on the basis of presumption the assessee’s intention was to evade tax. [Rupam Mercantiles Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (91 ITD 237) (Ahd.) 2.

WebFeb 17, 2024 · Coming back to the case, it is noted from the audited accounts of the assessee that he had shown aggregate sales to the tune of Rs.4,76,79,000/- in this … haflinger pocahontas anthrazitWeb(b) CIT vs. Aggarwal Engineering Co.; 302 ITR 246 (P&H), where it was observed that once the net profit rate was applied, no further addition was called for in respect of purchase and introduction of cash. (c) CIT vs. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar; 270 ITR 314; (d) CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar; 229 ITR 229 (All); and haflinger puch occasionWebwould be bad in law.—Manu engg. Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj), New Sorathia Engg. Co 282 ITR, 642 (Guj), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau). Thus, basis of satisfaction can not be altered subsequently by IAC.—CIT-v-Kejriwal Iron Stores 168 ITR 715 (Raj). Even penalty can not be levied for different item—CIT-V- C.K.Nehra & Bros 117 ITR 19 Cal. brake repairs houston