Civil Contractor Faced Rs. 1.51 Crore Addition After AO Applied 10% Profit Rate on Rs. 26.94 Crore Receipts; ITAT Orders Fresh Examination and 8% Profit Estimation:

The ITAT remanded the case of a Mysore civil contractor to the AO for fresh verification of turnover and directed profit estimation at 8% after reconciliation of records.
ITAT Orders 8% Profit Estimation After Turnover Verification

Civil Contractor Faced Rs. 1.51 Crore Addition After AO Applied 10% Profit Rate on Rs. 26.94 Crore Receipts; ITAT Orders Fresh Examination and 8% Profit Estimation
The ITAT Bangalore has provided relief to taxpayer Sri Yenubothula Venkat Ramana, a civil contractor from Mysore, by sending his case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination. The tribunal directed the tax authorities to estimate the contractor’s profit at 8% of the actual turnover after proper verification of records.
The assessee, Sri Yenubothula Venkat Ramana, had declared an income of Rs 1.26 crore while filing his income tax return (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Initially, the return was accepted; later, it was selected for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notices were served to the assessee under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act.
It was noted that the assessee had received a sum amounting to Rs 26.94 crore towards the contract payments during the year under consideration, as reflected in Form 26AS. Since the assessee himself admitted that there were significant mistakes in the financial statements and requested rejection of the books of account, the AO estimated business income at 10% of gross receipts and made an addition of about Rs 1.39 crore. The tax authorities also added interest income, disallowed a house property loss claim of Rs 2 lakh, and denied Chapter VI-A deductions of Rs 1.75 lakh.
The aggrieved assessee challenged the assessment before the ITAT Bangalore, arguing that the actual contract receipts were lower than those considered by the AO and that income should be estimated at 8% of turnover. He also contested the additions relating to interest income, house property loss, and deductions.
When the tribunal analysed the complete matter, it noted that the assessee had consistently requested an estimation of profit at 8% and that there were discrepancies in turnover figures appearing in the books, Form 26AS, and the assessee’s own records. Consequently, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the tax authorities and directed them to reconcile these figures and determine the correct turnover before applying an 8% profit rate.
The ITAT further instructed the tax authorities to verify the interest income mismatch, examine evidence relating to the house property loss claim, and allow the Chapter VI-A deduction if supporting documents are furnished. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2420My Recent Articles
- Bona Fide Mistake in ITR Cannot Deny Section 10(10B) Exemption on BSNL VRS Compensation, Holds ITATPremium
- ITAT Grants Taxpayer a Final Opportunity to Explain Rs 2.27 Crore Cash Deposits Under Section 69APremium
- ITAT Restores Appeals for Fresh Consideration After NFAC Denied Request of Personal Hearing Through Video ConferencingPremium
- ITAT Condones 97-Day Delay, Restores Appeal After CIT(A) Sent Hearing Notices to Wrong Email AddressPremium
- MCA Appoints Justice (Retd.) Yogesh Khanna as Officiating Chairperson of NCLAT for Three Months
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








