Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(All.)952
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order dated 28.5.2007 for the assessment year 2003-04.The brief 'facts of the case are that the assessee is the DDO being an employee in the Mahendra Technical Inter College, Chandauli. While calculating the annual tax of each employee, a few of employees of the college have given the donation receipts issued by M/s. Narendra Educational and Welfare Society and claimed hundred percent exemption of the donation amount under Section 80GGA, The assessee has allowed the deductions as per the donation receipts and deducted the lax thereafter.2. Later, it was found that the said receipts were not genuine and income was computed less by virtue of giving the so called deduction.For filing the wrong TDS certificates, the Assessing Officer levied the interest under Section 201(1A) and also raised the demand under Section 201 for the shortfall of the tax. The Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the order. Not being satisfied, the assessee is in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2008)298ITR313(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.CIT(A) where in he has confirmed the additions of Rs. 80,000, Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 2,50,000 being gifts received by the assessee from three different persons during the accounting year.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is deriving income from dealing in zarda and cigarettes on wholesale basis. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown to have received the gifts from the following persons: The AO while examining these gifts noted that gifts were given by Smt.Sharda Devi to the assessee on 19.3.2001 through cheque No. 051262 of Central Bank of India, Deoria. The AO recorded the statement of Smt.Sharda Devi wherein she had admitted that gift was given by her. She had received money after the death of her husband, who was an employee of Sales-tax department. He died in December, 2000. The AO noted that on the same date i.e. 19.3.2001, a sum of Rs. 80,000 was deposited in cash in the account...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2007)108TTJ(All.)88
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 69,95,000 added under Section 68 of IT Act.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee had taken a petrol pump in auction. For this purpose it raised loans mainly from two relatives namely Smt. Meena Jaiswal, from whom a sum of Rs. 36,25,000 was raised and Smt. Anita Jaiswal who gave a loan of Rs. 33,70,000. The auction of petrol pump was conducted by Bharat Petroleum. The assessee invested a sum of Rs. 70,47,100 in purchasing the pump. A sum of Rs. 52,100 was claimed to be her own investment from past savings. In order to verify the genuineness of the loan transactions and creditworthiness of the two creditors, the AO issued commission under Section 131(1)(d) to Asstt. CIT, Faizabad, who recorded the statement of both the ladies.The two ladies admitted to have advanced the aforesaid loan to the assessee. In her statement, Smt. Meena Jaiswal stated that she received loan fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.CIT(A) raising 26 grounds. The assessee sought permission to revise the grounds. The gist of revised grounds is as under: (1) Notice Under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. (2) Investment in free-hold charges of stamp duty in investment in. free hold charges and stamp duty is not income of the assessee. (4) Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act was wrongly applied for confirmation of Assessing Officer's action for capital gains by the CIT (A).2. The lads of the case arc that the assessee owned lease-hold land.Out of this, she sold 944 sq, meters plot of land during the year under consideration for a sum of Rs. 5,37,600/-. The said land was purchased by the assessee though a deed dated 7-10-86. The total area of the land was 2624 sqm. Out of this, 1680 sqm. was converted into fee-hold land.The rest of the land i.e. 944 sq.m. of laud was agreed to be sold by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2008)111ITD339(All.)
1. These arc two group of cases., one is in the case of Shri Alok Banerjee and the other is in the case of Shri Subir Banerjee. Both are based on identical set of facts and therefore, they are taken up together.2. We will first take up the case of Shri Alok Banerjee in I.T.A. NO.192/A/05 and CO raised therein against the order of the ld. CIT(A). The Revenue has come up in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 24-2-05 raising the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in holding that reopening of the assessment Under Section 147/148 was bad in law and he has also erred in law in directing that the order passed Under Section 143(3)/148 is cancelled. 2. That the Ld. CAT (A) has erred in law in not appreciating the provisions of relevant Section i.e. 147 of the IT. Act, which speaks that the A.O. may assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).2. The facts of the case are that assessee was an advocate and was a senior citizen. He had filed return of income from property and bank at Rs. 1,78,910. In this computation the assessee had declared long-term capital loss of Rs. 4,82,853 from sale of land/plot measuring 1,75,583 sq. ft. The land was situated at Sivpur, Sahebganj, Gorakhpur and was co-owned by the assessee. The capital gains was computed as under: Less : Index-cost of acquisition taking value as on 1-4-1981 @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. of 1,75,583 sq. ft.3. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee revised the measurement of the land to 1,92,383 sq. ft. from 1,75,583 sq. ft. and the long-term capital loss to Rs. 5,92,165 from Rs. 4,82,853. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer worked out the capital gain at Rs. 17,14,259 as against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2007)111TTJ(All.)717
1. Those are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the penalty Under Section 271(1)(c).2. The facts of the case are that assessce was an Advocate and was a senior citizen. He had filed return of income from property and bank at Rs. l,78,910/-.In this computation the assessee had declared long tem capital loss of Rs. 4,82,853/- from sale of land/plot measuring 175583 sq. ft. The land was situated at Sivpur, Sahebganj, Gorakhpur and was co-owned by the assessee The capital gains was computed as under:Total sale consideration Rs. 43, 89,575 Less; Index-cost of acquisition taking value as 100 Rs. 53,55,280 --------------- 3. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee revised the measurement of the land to 192383 sq. ft. from 175583 sq. ft. and the long term capital loss to Rs. 5,92,165/- from Rs. 4,82,853/-. While completing die assessment, the A.O. worked out the capital gain at Rs. 17,14,259/- as against capital loss ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(All.)882
1. In this case, revenue has raised two grounds - one is about deleting the addition of Rs. 6,19,058/- as extra profit made by the A.O. and the other is against directing the A.O. not to include in the total turnover the amount of sale proceeds not brought into India while computing deduction Under Section 80 HHC.2. Regarding first ground the facts are that the assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of carpets, the A.O. noticed that manufacturing process involved weavers he payment to whom is not verifiable. He rejected the books of account and applied gross profit rate of 18.5% as against 18.1% declared by the assessee. Ld. CIT (A) found that the assessee has maintained proper details and, therefore, there was no justification in making addition.3. We have heard ld. A.R. and ld. D.R. So far as applicability of provisions of Section 145 was concerned, we are of the view that it is applicable on the facts of the case as payments made to weavers/Karigars are not verifiable and there is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2007)109ITD215(All.)
1.(i) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in corning to the conclusion that the interest income of Rs. 572.99. lacs (out of the amount of Rs. 10,77,60,566/- shown in the para 4.0 of his order) earned on deposits with U.P. Co-operative Bank and other banks is covered Under Section 80P(2)(i) of I.T. Act, 1961 relying on the decisions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank 251 ITR 194 and CIT v. Rani Nath District Central Bank 255 ITR 423. (ii) In the present case, the deposits have been shown by the assessee bank in its balance sheet-as Investment and therefore in view of the CBDT Circular No. 528 dated. 16.12.88, the income therefrom is to be assessed as Income From Other Sources. In the cases relied on by the Ld. CIT(A), the deposits/ security were held as Stock in Trade and hence income therefrom was held to be Business Income eligible for deduction Under Section 80P(2)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2008)110ITD391(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT Under Section 263 directing therein to the ITO to include a sum of Rs. 53,27,812/- in the block assessment being the income declared by the assessee in the regular return of income for A.Y. 2002-03 on the ground that the said return was filed late and hence it is non-est.2. The facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out at the business and residence premises of the assessee on 4.9.2002. Block assessment Under Section 158 BC was passed on 30.9.2004 on an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,48,94,580/- Therefore ld. CIT issued a notice Under Section 263 on 19.4.2005 wherein he mentioned that assessee had filed a regular return for the A.Y. 2002-03 on 1.9.2004 disclosing an income of Rs. 53,27,812/-. The ld. CIT noted that the said return of income was not filed by the assessee during the time allowed Under Section 139 and was, therefore, non-est. He was of the view that while completing...
Tag this Judgment!