Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(JP.)1126
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), dt. 22nd Nov., 2004, for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The first grievance of the assessee is against the disallowance of remuneration amount of Rs. 1,79,005 paid to the working partners of the assessee-firm. The AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has not reduced the unabsorbed brought forward depreciation of the earlier years from the profit of the year under reference before working out the remuneration payable to the partners.In view of this, the AO reduced the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier (year) from the profit of the assessee-firm. As the resultant was a negative figure, the AO disallowed the remuneration paid to the partners. The CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO.3. With this background, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that unabsorbed depreciation is allowed under Section 32(2) only because of a fiction and it is subject to Section 72(2). Hence, un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(JP.)908
1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the common order of CIT(A), dt. 18th Dec., 1998. The Revenue has the similar grievance against the order of the CIT(A) in both the appeals wherein it has agitated on the ground that the learned CIT(A), in the case of Shri Ladu Ram (ITA No. 122/Jp/1999), erred in deleting the amount of Rs. 16,58,987 and Rs. 8,29,868 in the case of Shri Mool Chand (ITA No.123/Jp/1999).2. The brief facts in the case of Shri Ladu Ram are that he is a UDC in a primary health centre of Rajasthan Government at village Nokha and the source of income is salary from this profession and the total income has been shown at Rs. 28,000. Besides this, income from long-term capital gain of Rs. 16,58,987 on account of compulsory acquisition of land situated at village Belaka has also been declared.In this case, certain enquiries were got conducted on 5th Oct., 1997 on the basis of information received from UIT, Alwar.3. During the course of enquiries, the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2005)94ITD288(JP.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 25th May, 1999, for the asst. yr. 1996-97. Ground No. 1 : The CIT(A) erred in holding that on conversion of proprietary concern into a partnership firm as a going concern the decision of apex Court in case of A.L.A Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC) would apply and closing stock is to be valued at market rate and to be taxed under the head 'Income from business'.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a proprietor of M/s Garment Crafts, a 100 per cent export-oriented unit, which was converted into partnership firm on 1st April, 1995, whereby all the assets and liabilities of proprietary concern were taken over by the partnership firm as going concern in which assessee along with his son, Shri Shailendra Garg, became the partner. The AO held that on conversion of proprietary concern into partnership firm, the closing stock was to be valued at market rate and accordingly enhanced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2005)93TTJ(JP.)256
1. Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the learned CIT(A), dt. 21st Nov., 2003, for the financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. In these appeals, the solitary grievance of the assessee is as under: "The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under Section 2O1(1A) of IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 82,829 for the financial year 1998-99 and Rs. 72,904 for the financial year 1999-2000." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Board of Secondary Education, established by the Rajasthan Government. The AO held that the tax so deducted under Section 192(1) of the Act was not in accordance with law and the same was required to be deducted evenly in every month. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the charging of interest under Section 201(1A).3. During the course of arguments, the learned Authorised Representative explained that due to certain reasons, TDS could not be deducted in equal instalments of twelve months. Howe...
Tag this Judgment!