Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2007)108TTJ(JP.)1004
1. These two appeals arise from the order of learned CIT, Bikaner (headquarter at Jaipur) vide his order under Section 263, dt. 27th March, 2001 for the asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98.2. Ground No. 1 : Under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT Bikaner (headquarters at Jaipur) has erred in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and passing the order under that section which is illegal and bad in law.3. Ground No. 2 : Under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT Bikaner (headquarter at Jaipur) has erred in making the observation that the loss on account of fluctuations in foreign currency should be allowed in the year of payment, even when the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting.4. Ground No. 3 : Under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT, Bikaner (headquarter at Jaipur) has erred in setting aside the assessments to be made afresh with the directions to re-examine the issue in the light of his observations.5. In all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(JP.)697
1. These three appeals arise from the order of learned CIT(A)-III Jaipur, vide his order dt. 10th July, 2003 for the asst. yr. 1998-99, dt. 9th July, 2003 for the asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2001-02. Since the issue in all the three appeals is common, therefore, all the appeals are being taken up together for the sake of convenience.2. Ground of the Revenue in this appeal is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in including export through export house in export turnover while computing benefits under proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC and thereby allowing deduction of Rs. 2,60,23,142 against allowed by the AO at Rs. 2,45,98,416.3. The brief facts of this case are that the assessee is 100 per cent exporter and the total turnover comprises of direct export and export through export house. During the year it received export incentive of Rs. 25,49,584. In the original return, the deduction under Section 80HHC was claimed at Rs. 2,45,98...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(JP.)890
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dt. 16th Dec., 2002 passed by the learned CIT(A)-II, Jaipur, for asst. yr.1995-96. The ground of appeal reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-II, Jaipur, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,84,788 made by the AO on account of unexplained investment/expenditure/payment, despite that the net profit from the business was determined at Rs. 1,17,913 only. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without reconciling the total cash available and the source of payments effected through cheques.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a contractor and was engaged in the contracts awarded by PWD. In the return of income filed for the asst. yr. 1995-96, the assessee had shown net profit of Rs. 22,990 on contract receipts of Rs. 14,73,914. The net profit rate shown by the assessee was worked out to 1.55 per cent on contract receipts. The assessee...
Tag this Judgment!