Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2002)82ITD275(Gau.)
1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of the CIT(A) in respect of asst. yr. 1993-94. The appeal is time-barred by 11 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown in the condonation petition the delay is condoned and admit the appeal for hearing on merit.2. The only grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is the deletion of Rs. 60,147 which was added by the AO as undisclosed income of the assessee. Mr: B.B. Deb, the learned Departmental Representative, drawn our attention to the order of the first appellate authority at para 3.2 and submitted that the assessee has produced the statement of accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1988. The learned Departmental Representative further submitted that a copy of the petition dt. 30th Dec., 1994, which was filed by the assessee before the Dy. CIT, Dibrugarh Range, Dibrugarh, was also filed before the first appellate authority. The first appellate au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. All these three appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Dy. CIT(A). The appeal No. 27(Gau) and 28(Gau) of 1999 relate to the asst. yr. 1994-95 and the appeal No. 29 (Gau) of 1999 relates to the asst. yr 1995-96. As many as four grounds of appeal were taken in all the three appeals of two different assessees. However, in substance all the 4 grounds of appeal are related to one ground regarding the validity of the order of the Dy. CIT(A) in cancelling the assessment order on the ground that the same is null and void. In all the three appeals the assessee did not choose to appear even after service of notice. However, a written submission was filed on behalf of the assessee. After considering the written submission and considering the argument of the learned Departmental Representative we dispose of the three appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the AO selected all the three cases for scru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. This appeal is preferred by the Department against the order of the CIT(A) in respect of the asst. yr. 1992-93. In spite of service of notice the assessee has not appeared before this Tribunal at the time of hearing. However, the appeal is disposed of after hearing the Departmental Representative.2. The first ground of appeal is regarding the direction of the CIT(A) to take into account the interest income on maturity of FDRs. The AO found that the accrued interest was shown at Rs. 9,000 only. However, according to the AO the interest was higher. According to the AO normally on long-term deposit the bank allowed 10 per cent interest per annum. Accordingly the AO added a sum of Rs. 22,000 towards interest income on estimate basis at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the deposit of Rs. 2,20,000. The learned Departmental Representative, Mr.P. Sarma, submitted that the CIT(A) has committed a mistake in directing the AO to take into account the interest income on maturity of FDRs. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. Both the appeals are filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee respectively in respect of the asst. yr. 1992-93 against the order of the CIT(A). Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same order of the CIT(A), we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.2. The common ground raised in both the appeals are in respect of addition made by the AO on account of daily wages in respect of contract business. The. AO has made an addition of Rs. 75,000 on the ground that the signatures and thumb impression of the labourers differed and hence he made an addition of Rs. 75,000 to the total income of the assessee.3. However, on appeal the first appellate authority was of the view that the difference in signature should not be adversely treated without properly examining the person concerned. However, he sustained an addition of Rs. 45,000 on estimate and granted a relief of Rs. 30,000 to the assessee. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,65,647 in the asst. yr. 1989-90 and Rs. 45,246 in the asst. yr. 1991-92 made by the AO under the head "Income from other sources" an account of undisclosed investment in construction of hotel building. Since both the appeals are covered by similar points, they are being disposed of by this single order for the sake of convenience.2. The fact of the case is that the assessee has constructed a hotel building at Agartala in the States of Tripura, the construction of which was started in the financial year 1987-88 and continued upto the financial year 1990-91. As per the accounts of the assessee the total investment in construction of building upto the asst. yr. 1991-92 was Rs. 26,50,190 which includes investment in the asst. yr. 1989-90 of Rs. 13,20,782 and in the asst. yr. 1991-92 of Rs. 3,60,679. The AO finding massive investment in construction referred the matter to the Depart...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2002)80ITD355(Gau.)
1. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 24-1-1994 in respect of the assessment year 1990-91 the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee company registered under the Indian Companies Act with an object of purchasing, leasing or otherwise dealing with land, building, tenaments etc. In pursuance of the object of the company the assessee purchased an area of 5989 sq.ft. on the 5th floor of the premises at 113, Park Street, Calcutta.According to the assessee, the abovesaid premises was let out to various tenants on monthly rental basis. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1990-91 disclosing a total loss of Rs. 4,21,680 which includes Rs. 3,55,380 as carried forward loss of earlier year.According to the assessee the income from the abovesaid property is to be classified under the head "Business income" under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the Assessing Officer disagreed with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2002)80ITD1(Gau.)
1. Present appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), dated 22nd September, 1994 for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-1989 and 1990-1991.The grievance of Revenue was against treatment of interest on bank deposits as business income and thereby eligible for deduction under Sections 32AB, 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The assessee is an Industrial Undertaking engaged in the manufacturing of electrical towers against the orders of Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB). During the course of its business for manufacturing of towers, it got advance payment from ASEB for execution of its orders.The assessee put part of the advances received from ASEB in Bank as fixed deposit for procuring bank guarantees against the same. Assessee also availed overdraft facilities from the Bank against such deposits.Assessment completed under Section 143(1) was set aside by CIT under Section 263, on the ground whether interest received from fixed deposit could be attributed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
The first four issues in this appeal filed by the assessee relate to partial sustenance of disallowances out of certain items of expenses.The assessee-firm is the owner of several Biri factories at different places. In the assessment order, the assessing officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 10,000 out of travelling expenses at Tinsukia claimed at Rs. 31,644 on ground of inclusion of personal expenses relating to the air tickets of wife of one of the partners and some other persons unconnected with the business of the assessee-firm. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the said disallowance to Rs. 5,000. On the facts of the case, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).The assessing officer also disallowed an amount of Rs. 8,000 out of telephone charges claimed at Tinsukia and Rs. 6,000 out of similar telephone charges claimed at Calcutta on the ground of personal user of the telephone. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed relief of Rs. 3,000 out of each of the expenses items. Alt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. The first four issues in this appeal filed by the assessee relate to partial sustenance of disallowances out of certain items of expenses.2. The assessee-firm is the owner of several Biri factories at different places. In the assessment order, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 10,000 out of travelling expenses at Tinsukia claimed at Rs. 31,644 on ground of inclusion of personal expenses relating to the air tickets of wife of one of the partners and some other persons unconnected with the business of the assessee-firm. The CIT(A) reduced the said disallowance to Rs. 5,000. On the facts of the case, we uphold the order of the CIT(A).3. The AO also disallowed an amount of Rs. 8,000 out of telephone charges claimed at Tinsukia and Rs. 6,000 out of similar telephone charges claimed at Calcutta on the ground of personal user of the telephone. The CIT(A) allowed relief of Rs. 3,000 out of each of the expenses items. Although he states that he restricted the disallowance in respect of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2000)75ITD197(Gau.)
1. The appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are arising out of the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. The first dispute raised in the appeal is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,782 being the amount paid to Assam Tribune Sports Club. It was disallowed by the AO on the ground that the expenditure was of a non-trading nature. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the payments were made for the welfare of the employees who were the members of this sports club and, therefore, he held that the expenditure cannot be said to be for non-trading purposes. As the expenditure is for the welfare of the employees, the CIT(A), in our opinion, was right in allowing the claim of the assessee. No interference is called for. His order on this issue is upheld.3. The next issue is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 12,840 made under the head "Biswakarma Puja". It was disallowed by the AO as being not business expenditure. ...
Tag this Judgment!