| Question And Answer | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Purchases – Turnover – Case Law on Section , 44AB read with S 271B |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Querist: | S. G. Gandhi and company |
| Answered by: | Advocate Neelam Jadhav |
| Tags: | purchases, Section 44AB, Turnover |
| Date: | June 28, 2021 |
We are not getting a correct citation of decision CCIT v Vijay Maheshwari HUF, a case on issue of ‘TURNOVER’ for S.44AB of I T Act. Everywhere it is mentioned as 228 ITR 157 SC (Statute). But it is not available. Can ITATONLINE help. Other references are 515/BOM/1991 & ITA /924/1995 decided on 27/03/1996. SLP is dismissed on 13/10/1997 by SC. SLP No. is Civil/20074/1997. We have tried on HC and SC websites also. If possible mail copy of decisions.
It is reported in (1997) 228 ITR 157 (St ) which reads as under
Audit of accounts : Return .
Assessee under obligation to get its accounts audited in view of purchase being in excess of Rs 40 lakhs whether return filed on 30 th October 1991 for the assessment year 1991 -92 in time :
13 -10 -1997 : Their Lordships Mrs Sujata V.Manohar and D.P Wadhwa JJ . dismissed the special leave petition filed by the Department against the judgment dated 27 -3 -1996 of the Bombay High Court in I.T.A. No 924 of 1995 , whereby the High Court rejected the reference application of the Department on the question whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the return filed by the assessee on 30 th October 1991 , for the assessment year 1991 -92 was in time as it was under obligation to get it accounts audited in view of its purchases being in excess of Rs 40 lakhs and turnover connoted sale or purchases. ?. Chief CIT v .Vijay Maheswari ( HUF ) .C.C.No. 7819 of 1997 .
Note : This being rejection of SLP one may have to read the Judgement of Bombay High Court , which is not reported and also not available in the website of Bombay High Court .