Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (1995)52ITD212Jab
1. The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate orders of CWT (Appeals), Bareilly dated 31-5-1990 mainly on the ground of levy of penalties under Section 18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957.2. The assessee-company filed the returns of wealth for both the assessment years on 29-8-1985. The valuation dates in this case were 31-7-1983 and 31-7-1984 respectively. The assessee had sought extension of time for furnishing the wealth-tax return in relation to assessment year 1984-85 up to 31-10-1984 vide applications dated 1-6-1984 and 29-9-1984. No further extension for filing the return was sought by the assessee. In reply to the show-cause notice the assessee filed written submissions on 13-2-1989 and stated that the levy of wealth-tax was reintroduced by Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 for the first time and the assessee-company came to know of it only through the auditors when they pointed out that the return had to be filed. Therefore, the delay in filing of the return w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (1998)66ITD571Jab
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT (Appeals), Jabalpur.2. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal are against the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,66,046 on Gas cylinders. The facts of the case are that the assessee company derives income from production and sale of industrial gases. During the accounting year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the assessee purchased 454 gas cylinders of Rs. 15,32,092 on various dates as under :-Bill No. Date No. of Cylinders Amount-------- --------- ----------------- ---------JMC/63 10-2-1994 200 6,69,760JMC/65 19-2-1994 90 3,01,392JMC/70 26-2-1994 150 5,02,320JMC/71 26-2-1994 12 40,1862DA/1993-94 15-12-1993 2 7,415.20 ------------ Add : Transportation 11,019.00 ------------ 3. As the cost of each cylinder was below Rs. 5,000, the assessee claimed the entire cost of purchase of cylinders at Rs. 15,32,092 as depreciation. The Assessing Officer opined that the cylinders were used for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
1. This reference application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act is by the Revenue, requiring this Tribunal to refer the following questions as of law to the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur for their esteemed opinion : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,49,000 under s. 68 of the IT Act, made by the AO relying on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,575 added by the AO under s. 68 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that the restaurant was running in loss and the assessee was not able to explain the sources of cash credit 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that creditworthiness of shareholders was not to be e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (1998)60TTJJab161
This reference application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act is by the Revenue, requiring this Tribunal to refer the following questions as of law to the Honble Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur for their esteemed opinion : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,49,000 under s. 68 of the IT Act, made by the AO relying on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,575 added by the AO under s. 68 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that the restaurant was running in loss and the assessee was not able to explain the sources of cash credit 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that creditworthiness of shareholders was not to be estab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed by the order passed by Ld.Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Jabalpur, dated 4-9-2006, relevant to assessment year 2001-02, wherein following three grounds have been raised. 1. That the order of the CIT (Appeals) in upholding the assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, erroneous and unjustified. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals)-Il was erroenous and unjustified while upholding that the provisions of Section 44AD of Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable in the Appellant's case. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the C.I.T. (Appeals) is totally unjustified in not relying the Book result and upholding the application of 8% of net profit on gross receipts.2. The facts indicate that the business of the assessee as noted by Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) is buying plots, constructing residential h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (1999)68ITD407Jab
1. This appeal is by the assessee directed against the assessment order dated 31-9-1997 under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as Act.2. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. A search was conducted on 12-1-1996 to 20-1-1996 at the premises of the assessee and the residential premises of the members of the HUF, which resulted in the seizure of the following assets :-Cash 1,36,869 75,000Jewellery 72,681 NilStock 1,05,26,150 13,45,960 3. The assessee (HUF) derives income from business. Head office is located at Baldeobag and the branches are at Marhatal and Ranjhi at Jabalpur. The branches at Chhindwara and Kareli were closed earlier.The assessee deals in tractors, trax, agricultural equipments, TV and Refrigerators, Automobile, Two-wheelers, Diesel, Petrol and other consumer durable products. A notice under Section 142(1) was issued to the assessee for making a block assessment for A.Y. 85-86 to 95-96 and 1-4-95 to 12-1-96. A questionnai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2004)86TTJJab815
The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-10- 1999, confirming penalty under section 271D of the Act pertaining to assessment year 1996-97.Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee derived income from trading in jewellery, truck plying and sale of agricultural produce. During the year, the assessee purchased a property along with his father for a consideration of Rs. 3,80,000. Since the assessee had no funds available, the father of the assessee paid the entire consideration as per agreement of co-ownership executed on 10-4-1995.Father made the payment of Rs. 2,00,000 by way of Bank draft and balance amount of Rs. 1,80,000 was paid in cash. As per co-ownership agreement dated 10-4-1995 which is registered, the consideration was to be paid by father whereas the property was to be registered in the name of the assessee. Thus, in the assessee's account, the entire amount of Rs. 3,80,000 was shown as loan from the fath...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (1997)60ITD554Jab
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), Jabalpur. "The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,335 on account of short-term capital gains without appreciation of the fact and there was a dissolution giving rise to short-term capital gains within the meaning of section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 3. The facts of the case are that there was a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Shri M.K. Minocha, Ku. Sudershan Minocha and Smt. Vidya Minocha. One of the partners, namely, Ku.Sudershan Minocha, expired on 28th January, 1989 and Smt. Vidya Minocha retired from the partnership with effect from the same date, i.e. 28th January, 1989. Consequently, Shri M.K. Minocha, the remaining partner took over all the assets and liabilities of the firm as it stood on the date of death of Ku. Sudershan Minocha and retirement of Smt. Vidya Minocha. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 22,335 as short-term capital gains by applyi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT (A) dated 26.4.1999 wherein he has deleted the addition of Rs. 22,30,000 The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,30,000 made by the AO as income from undisclosed sources.2. Originally the assessment was completed on Sri Satyapal Wassan.Thereafter legal heir Sri Naresh Wassan was substituted on the death of Sri Satyapal Wassan. It was reported that Sri Naresh Wassan had also expired on 5.10.2006. Thereafter Smt. Shraddha Wassan has been taken as legal heir on recor.3. The facts of the case are that the business and residential premises of Sri Satypal Wassan was searched in April, 1995. During the course of the search operations, various documents and books of accounts were seized. The impugned addition of Rs. 22,30,000 was based on a loose paper No. 7 of Annexure A-1/1-4 which was seized from the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2002)254ITR85Jab
1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on December 5, 1996, in relation to the assessment year 1993-94.2. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the confirmation by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) of the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the firm in the status of association of persons rather than the firm as such.3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income accompanied with a copy of the partnership deed certified by the advocate. On being pointed out, the assessee furnished a copy of the partnership deed duly certified by all the partners. The Assessing Officer opined that the firm was liable to be assessed as an association of persons for the reason that the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of the partnership deed duly certified by all the partners along with the return was not complied with. The action of the Assessing Officer was echoed by the Co...
Tag this Judgment!