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

Author: idgx

August undefined, 2024

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 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.

High Court Judgments - BCAS

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 … 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. green acres show actors

Judicial Support to New Penal provision Under Section 270A

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. 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 · The A.O may proceed under Section 145(3) under any of the following circumstances: green acres sicile

The Mumbai Tribunal decision on taxation aspects of …

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

WebMar 7, 2024 · The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2 nd March 2024 in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited Vs CIT, put a rest to the contentious issue of tax on Payment by end users or tech companies in India to suppliers abroad on import of software as ‘ Royalty’. 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 … green acres show songWebCIT (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 … green acres singles group

"WebThe Pr. CIT were directed to issue instructions to AO’s to strictly adhere to the law explained in various decisions and make it mandatory for them to ensure that an order for reopening of an assessment clearly records compliance with each of the legal requirements. " - Cit vs aggarwal engg co. 302 itr 246 p&h hc

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

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 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:

Did you know?

WebFrom a perusal of the tradingaccount it is revealed that assessee has shown total sales for a sum of Rs.4, 76,78,990/- and closing stock of Rs.71,93,896/- and Gross profit to the … 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.

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 WebDec 24, 2009 · Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT and Anr (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del.) X. Reassessment within four years. 25. An assessment order passed after detailed discussion cannot be reopened within a period of 4 years unless the AO has reason to believe due to some inherent defect in the assessment.

WebJan 10, 2024 · The Honble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.) held as under : “In the course of survey conducted in the … 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

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 ...

WebMar 3, 2024 · CIT vs Aggarwal Engg Co. (302 ITR 246) (P&H HC) New Pooja Jewellers Vs. ITO CIT vs Bahubali N Muttin (72 taxmann.com 139) In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the … green acres signWebJun 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 … flowermart 2022WebAggarwal 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 flower marshmallow lollipopsWebSep 10, 2024 · Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) provides revisional power to Principal Commissioner (‘Pr. CIT’) or Commissioner (‘CIT’) if he is of the opinion that an order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. flower marshmallowsWebJan 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 … flower mart baltimore mdWebApr 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 … flower mart chicagoWeb11. 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. flower mart criterium