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

Author: yqcf

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.

Core Principles of Reassessment with Important Case Laws

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 … 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 … grand canyon railway tours from williams az

Reassessment : Section 147 – 153 « AIFTP

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 ... 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 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. chinees bathmen

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

WebGet free access to the complete judgment in Naresh Pharmaceutical v. Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax . on CaseMine. 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 grand canyon rattlesnake factsWebOn 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 … grand canyon railway trainz

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

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

Addition us 68 for cash deposited in bank during

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 … 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

Did you know?

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 … 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

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 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 …

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 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,

WebJan 11, 2024 · The A.O may proceed under Section 145(3) under any of the following circumstances:

WebSep 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. chinees bamboo innWebGenuineness of Transactions and Cardinal concepts of taxation By CA. Pankaj G. Shah F. chinees betonplexWebAkkal Dudhwewala, A.R for the Appellant. Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT for the Respondent. chinees blaricumWebJun 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 … grand canyon rattlesnake fun factsWebCIT(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 … grand canyon ranch vacationWebness 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 grand canyon railway train ticketsWebJul 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. chinees bilthoven