Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)93ITD78(Jodh.)
1. Both these appeals pertain to same assessee for two A.Ys., namely, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and identical issues are involved in both these appeals. So, for the sake of convenience, these are being disposed off by this common order.2. We would like to mention that these appeals were taken out of turn for hearing in view of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court decision while disposing off the stay application. The Hon'ble High Court gave a direction to expeditiously dispose off these appeals.3. The appellant company, namely, M/s Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd., Udaipur [hereinafter referred to as the Lessor Company] and M/s Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd., Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the Lessee Company] are the companies incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956.The lessor company had given on lease certain plant and machinery to the lessee company for both these years and had claimed depreciation.While passing the assessment orders Under Section 143(3), the ld. AO allowed the depreciation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2003)78TTJ(Jodh.)567
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 28th June, 1996, of the CIT(A), Ajmer, for the asst. yr. 1993-94.2. The Revenue agitated on the ground that the CIT(A), Ajmer, erred in deleting the trading addition of Rs. 13,05,606 made by the AO by applying net profit rate of 2.67 per cent against the net profit of 0.74 per cent declared by the assessee.3. The brief facts of the case are that the main dispute in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 13,05,606 rejecting the book results.The company-respondent is a manufacturer of polyester suitings. During the year under consideration, on total sales of Rs. 6,28,174 net profit of Rs. 5,00,066, giving net profit rate of 0.74 per cent was declared.The company-respondent was asked to file the detail of purchase and sale of quantity, quality and value. As such details were not filed and the AO felt that book results cannot be verified, he gathered information from the Central excise department about the production, sale and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Jodh.)368
1. This is an appeal of the assessee for asst. yr. 1996-97 which is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 29th March, 2000.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from the running of petrol pump situated at Amet. The assessee is having a branch office at Udaipur in addition to head office at Amet. The assessee also derives income from the plying of tankers of its own and of others taken on hire on commission basis. The assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 64,110. This return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, this case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment under Section. 143(3) was completed by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 13,62,970 as against the returned income of Rs. 64,110. This assessment order was subjected to appeal before the first appellate authority, who also confirmed certain additions which are the subject-matter of this appeal. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Jodh.)712
1. The appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee, are directed against the order of CIT(A) dt. 28th Oct., 2004 pertaining to asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The assessee is doing business of cloth trading at Jodhpur. On total sales of Rs. 39,48,545 the assessee has declared GP of Rs. 6,66,732 which gave a GP rate of 16.90 per cent as against the GP rate of 11.72 per cent declared as total sales of Rs. 26,85,121 in the last year. On verification of P&L a/c it was noticed that the assessee had claimed a salary of Rs. 2,10,170 as against salary payment of Rs. 80,533 in the last year. The assessee had paid the following salary:Name of the person Last year This year.Noticing increase in the salary of Shri Rakesh Kumar and Surendra Kumar, the AO show caused the assessee. It was explained that in the last year salary was paid only for three months, whereas in this year it is paid for twelve months. The AO wanted the records of last year to verify this fact. When records were not...
Tag this Judgment!