Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2001)78ITD368(Pune.)
1. Since the issues involved in these appeals are inter-connected, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The issues involved in these appeals relate to the levy of penalty under section 271D and section 271E.2. The brief facts of the case are these. The assessee is engaged in wholesale trading of country liquor. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that assessee had received certain loans/deposits in cash from two persons and repaid the same in cash, details of which are as under:-- It is also to be noted that there were outstanding opening balance to the credit of these two persons i.e., Rs. 19,500 in the case of Shri Shriram and Rs. 16,500 in the case of Shri Ganesh. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 269T were violated by the assessee. Accordingly, the penalty notices under sections 271D and 271E were issued. In response to notice under section 271-D, the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2001)70TTJ(Pune.)156
The issue arising out of this appeal relates to the interpretation of section 43A of Income Tax Act, 1961.The brief facts of the case are that assessee-company had borrowed foreign currency loan from IDBI in Japanese currency-Yen, for acquisition of CNC Chucking automatic machine in assessment year 1987-88. The relevant exchange rate at the time when the loan was availed of was Re. 1 against Japanese Yen 11.95. In the assessment year 1989-90, the relevant exchange rate was Re. 1 against Japanese Yen 8.34. Accordingly, there was an increase in the liability of the assessee in respect of the outstanding amount to be paid by the assessee against IDBI loan. Accordingly, the cost of machine acquired by the assessee was increased in pursuance of additional liability by invoking the provision of section 43A and depreciation was claimed on the enhanced cost of acquisition. The same was allowed to the assessee by the assessing officer in the regular assessment proceedings under section 143(3)....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2001)77ITD320(Pune.)
1. The issue arising out of this appeal relates to the interpretation of section 43A of Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee-company had borrowed foreign currency loan from IDBI in Japanese currency - Yen for acquisition of CNC Chucking automatic machine in assessment year 1987-88. The relevant exchange rate at the time when the loan was availed of was Rupee 1 against Japanese Yen 11.95. In the assessment year 1989-90, the relevant exchange rate was Rupee 1 against Japanese Yen 8.34. Accordingly, there was an increase in the liability of the assessee in respect of the outstanding amount to be paid by the assessee against IDBI loan. Accordingly, the cost of machine acquired by the assessee was increased in pursuance of additional liability by invoking the provision of section 43A and depreciation was claimed on the enhanced cost of acquisition. The same was allowed to the assesscc by the Assessing Officer in the regular assessment proceedings under sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2001)78ITD397(Pune.)
1. The common grievance projected in these six appeals by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is an Advocate carrying on legal profession for the last more than 25 years. He is dealing in cases of farmers pertaining to compensation on compulsory acquisition of their lands by the Government. There was a search and seizure action on the premises of the assessee from 21-8-1995 to 22-8-3995. Various incriminating documents and records were seized by the department during the course of search and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 24-8-1996 for the Block period 1-4-1985 to 21-8-1995 under section 158BC read with section 143(3) of the Act. While scrutinising the seized documents in the course of assessment proceedings for the Block period, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had repaid loans/deposits in exce...
Tag this Judgment!