Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2004)91TTJCtk586
These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar, confirming the penalties of Rs. 14,203 and Rs. 23,800 imposed under section 272A(2)(c) of IT Act for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98, respectively.This is a peculiar case of its nature where the assessee is not an individual but the State of Orissa itself, being represented through Executive Engineer, PH Division, Berhampur, Ganjam. So, for all practical purposes, Executive Engineer PH Division, Berhampur, has to be treated as assessee. The moot question proposed to be decided by us in this appeal relates to the point whether leniency can be shown to Executive Engineer, PH Division, for non-furnishing of annual return in Form No. 26C by due dates, i.e., 30-6-1997 and 30-8-1999, for the respective assessment years under consideration. However, the same were filed on 2-8-1999, after notices were issued by the Department. The assessing officer imposed penalties fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2004)90TTJCtk593
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed under section 263, dated 30-3-2000, for the assessment year 1995-96.The first grievance of the assessee relate to action of the Commissioner in not following the ratio of Supreme Court decision reported in Ram Prasad v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 122 (SC) while passing order under section 263.The second grievance of the assessee relates to Commissioner's action under section 263 in which order of the assessing officer under section 143(3) was set aside and for not allowing the standard deduction under section 16(i) of the Income Tax Act.The brief facts of the issue are that while passing the order under section 143(3) the assessing officer adopted the income declared by the assessee as it is, and thereafter he made addition on point of accrued interest and unexplained expenditure 38 under section 69C. Thus, there is no mention in the assessment order regarding salary income being received by the assessee and on which standard ded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2004)91TTJCtk584
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT under section 263, dt. 20-3-2000, for the assessment year 1995-96.Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In his order under section 263, the CIT observed that the assessing officer has allowed excess depreciation on various assets even though these were used for less than 180 days. According to the CIT, the assessing officer should have allowed 50 per cent of the normal rate instead of 100 per cent as the assets were used for a period of less than 180 days. The assessee was also required by the CIT to submit details and its grievance regarding use of the assets for period exceeding 180 days. In spite of giving due opportunity, the assessee could not submit details so as to substantiate its claim for depreciation. The CIT, therefore, reached to the conclusion that order of the assessing was erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, therefore, set aside the order of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2004)89ITD316Ctk
1. All the above appeals and Cross Objections filed by the Revenue and the Assessee are against the CIT(A), Bhubaneswar, order dated 4.1.2002 for the assessment year 1990-91.2. Since all the above appeals relate to the assessment year 1990-91 all these appeals are being disposed of vide this consolidated order.4. The Revenue is in appeal on two effective grounds of appeal, which are being disposed of separately. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,200 under the head donation observing that the expenses incurred are in normal course of running of business Under Section 37(1) of the IT Act without proper verification and when the assessee has not been able to establish as to how such payments were incidental to the business." 6. While completing the assessment AO disallowed Rs. 44200 on account of donation observing that donations were inadmissible. In appeal CIT(A) deleted the same accepting the donat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2004)82TTJCtk468
1. Through these miscellaneous applications, this group of applicants seeks to recall the orders passed by us in the stay petitions.2. The petitioners filed stay petitions on 30th July, 2002. At the time of hearing of these stay petitions on 13th Nov., 2002, the petitioners filed applications for withdrawal of these petitions. Hence, the stay petitions were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt. 14th Nov., 2002.These miscellaneous applications have been filed on 3rd April, 2003, with a prayer that the stay orders passed on 14th. Nov., 2002, may be recalled.3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel of these petitioners submitted that petitions for withdrawal of the stay petitions were filed because of the fact that the pressure was made by the IT Department by issue of attachment notices for recovery of the demands and disputed tax and also further pressurised to give consent for depositing some amount. He further submitted that the stay petitions withdrawn previously may kindly be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2002)82ITD120Ctk
1. The above-mentioned three appeals belong to one group and are dealing in iron and steel. There was a search in the premises of the above-mentioned assessees on 2nd, 3rd and 4th Nov., 1995. Block assessments have been made under Chapter XIV-B in respect of the three assessees. Hence, they were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience as the issue involved is one and identical in respect of all appeals. The assessment orders in all cases are more or less identical. Therefore, we take M/s Utkal Steels Ltd. as the main case and proceed to dispose of other two appeals also on the same lines.2. The only dispute in all the appeals is regarding preparation of inventory and quantification of stocks and valuation of the same.During the course of search the Revenue authorities did not find any valuable asset or papers. Therefore, they straightaway proceeded to inventorise the stock of the three concerns which the assessees dispute. According to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2004)269ITR20Ctk
1. The abovementioned three appeals belong to one group and are dealing in iron and steel. There was a search in the premises of the abovementioned assessees on 2nd, 3rd and 4th of November, 1995. Block assessments have been made under Chapter XIV-B in respect of the three assessees. Hence, they were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience as the issue involved is one and identical in respect of all appeals. The assessment orders in all cases are more or less identical. Therefore, we take M/s. Utkal Steels Ltd. as the main case and proceed to dispose of other two appeals also on the same lines.2. The only dispute in all the appeals is regarding preparation of inventory and quantification of stocks and valuation of the same.During the course of search, the Revenue authorities did not find any valuable asset or papers. Therefore, they straightaway proceeded to inventorise the stock of the three concerns which the assessees dispute. According...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2001)73TTJCtk159
These are the cross-appeals filed by the assessee and revenue both against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-12-1999, for the assessment year 1998-99.While processing the return under section 143(1)(a) the Joint Commissioner made prima facie adjustment in respect of interest claimed as expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,26,84,848 under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and railway siding expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,56,96,815 and charged additional tax and interest.In the course of making prima facie adjustment, the assessing officer found that the assessee-company had claimed interest in respect of borrowed capital for its expansion project being undertaken at a cost of Rs. 80 crores. The assessee in its account has capitalised the interest as the project has not been commissioned till the closing of the accounting year, by following certain accounting guidelines. The assessee has claimed the expenditure as a revenue expenditure on the ground that money has been borro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
1. In these appeals filed by the assessee against the common order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 21st Feb., 2000, the issue involved is one and common. Hence, for the sake of convenience, the appeals have been consolidated and a common order is being passed.2. The assessee is mainly a housewife, who earns income from house property, of profit from the firm M/s Sivaram Routo & Partners and also from other sources like bank and NSG interest. The assessments for asst. yrs. 1988-89, 1989-90 an 1991-92 were completed earlier, more or less, on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee showing nominal amounts of income. During the course of the assessment proceeding for asst. yr. 1990-91, however, which was taken up as a scrutiny assessment, the AO noted that the assessee had constructed a three-storey building on plinth area of more than 3,200 ft. within the Municipal limits of Berhampur town. The matter relating to determination of cost of construction of the building was referred by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2002)76TTJCtk455
In these appeals filed by the assessee against the common order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 21-2-2000, the issue involved is one and common. Hence, for the sake of convenience, the appeals have been consolidated and a common order is being passed.The assessee is mainly a housewife, who earns income from house property, of profit from the firm M/s Sivaram Routo & Partners and also from other sources like bank and NSC interest. The assessments for assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 were completed earlier, more or less, on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee showing nominal amounts of income. During the course of the assessment proceeding for assessment year 1990-91, however, which was taken up as a scrutiny assessment, the assessing officer noted that the assessee had constructed a three-storey building on plinth area of more than 3,200 ft. within the Municipal limits of Berhampur town. The matter relating to determination of cost of construction of the ...
Tag this Judgment!