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

Author: osrc

August undefined, 2024

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 WebMay 14, 2024 · The Court observed that penalty proceedings Assessee has offered explanation and caused to produce affidavits and record statements of the concerned unregistered dealers and establish their credentials .That explanation has been accepted by the CIT (A) vide order dated 13-01-2011.

Deepak Mittal v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – …

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 … Web(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 kenneth j. hendrickson obituary

High Court Judgments - BCAS

WebJan 6, 2012 · Citation: 2012-LL-0106-20: Appellant Name: The Income Tax Officer-Ward-1: Respondent Name: M/s. Vrajleela Assciates: Court: ITAT-Ahmedabad : Relevant Act: Income-tax 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 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. kenneth jeffrey marshall net worth

Analysis: Rejection of books of accounts in the Income Tax Act – …

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

Webness man’s prudent man’s angle view, then that cannot be brushed aside by the AO, without disproving the explanation facts or by giving cogent reasons. Statement of bank accounts of assessee (3 bank accounts) it is noted that assessee has deposited in his three bank account (pre demone Webwould 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. kenneth johnson obituary new yorkWeb(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 kenneth j. minnaert center for the arts

"WebAkkal Dudhwewala, A.R for the Appellant. Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT for the Respondent. " - Cit vs aggarwal engg co. 302 itr 246 p&h hc

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

The Mumbai Tribunal decision on taxation aspects of …

WebJul 7, 2024 · The Central Processing Centre (CPC) has only considered the item in lieu of ‘NIL’ and has not considered the exemption under Section 10 (23C) (iiib) or deduction under Section 80P, for which it was eligible. However, AO rejected claim of assessee. On appeal. The CIT (A) and futher, the ITAT allowed assessee’s claim. WebJun 30, 2016 · (i) Source of deposit, or of cash inflow, is explained through gross profit additions. [refer- CIT v.Aggarwal Engg. Co. (Jal.) [2008] 302 ITR 246/156 Taxman 40 (Punj.& Har.)] (ii)Investment in later years is explained by intangible additions of earlier years, unless it is proved by the Revenue that such additions were not available for …

Did you know?

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 … WebJaipur – 302 018. Tel: +91 141 - 7103224 Tel Kochi Syama Business Centre, 3rd Floor, NH By Pass Road, Vytilla, Kochi – 682 019. Tel: +91 484 302 5600 Kolkata Unit No. 604, 6th Floor, Tower – 1, Godrej Waterside, Sector – V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – Sai Odyssey,700 091. Tel: +91 33 4403 4000 Mumbai 1st Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills,

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 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 …

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: WebGenuineness of Transactions and Cardinal concepts of taxation By CA. Pankaj G. Shah F.

WebThe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Co. v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) had observed that the Court held that the failure to observe the principles of natural justice …

WebJan 11, 2024 · He has submitted that Ld. CIT (A) has merely recorded order sheet entry on 8th June, 2024, but has not been given any specific notice for making enhancement to … kenneth j minnaert center for the artsWebJan 11, 2024 · The A.O may proceed under Section 145(3) under any of the following circumstances: kenneth johnson obituary hamburg paWebCIT (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 … kenneth jones solicitors companies houseWebOn 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 … kenneth john robinson of healesville kenneth johnson attorney greensboro ncWebThe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Co. v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) had observed that the Court held that the failure to observe the principles of natural justice cannot be made good in appeal. Lack of opportunity before the Assessing officer cannot be rectified by the appellate authority by giving such opportunity. 4.2. kenneth johnson obituary texasWebMar 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 ... kenneth johnson facebook