Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1994)51ITD65Indore
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Bhopal and pertains to the assessment year 1990-91.2. Briefly the facts : The assessee is a specified HUF for the relevant assessment year, accounting year ended on 31st March, 1990. Assessee is doing business in TENDU LEAVE and also enjoying share income from S.Kanhaiyalal Bidi Co., Bhopal. It was stated before the Assessing Officer that TENDU LEAVE is a "forest produce", therefore, in regard to the income from this forest produce, prescription of Section 44AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), should be followed and accordingly tax on the said income should be charged @ 35% on presumptive basis as contemplated in the section. It was further stated that Section 44AC begins with, non obstante clause, therefore, it has got overriding effect. Admittedly as per account books, the income is higher than the one computed in accordance with Section 44AC.The rates of tax as contemplated under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1994)48TTJIndore395
This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order, dt. 6th January, 1992 of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1988-89.2. The assessee is manufacturer of soaps and one of the raw materials required is industrial acid oil. During the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1988-89, the assessee acquired by transfer the following four import licences, which were issued to EMC Steel Ltd. : EMC Steel Ltd. transferred the aforesaid licences to Bhagchandka Export Ltd. and were transferred to the assessee finally. The said import licences were split licence exports effected in pursuance of contract No. 01/CC/045-075-AL, dt. 11th August, 1981, which was registered in accordance with the provisions of registration of contract, vide Appendix 20 of 1980-81 import policy. The said Appendix 20 permits imports of carbon steel/high tensile steel structurals. By virtue of para 8 of Appendix 20 of 1980-81 policy r/w paras 16, 17 of that Appendix and para 131(1) of that policy, the said licences were valid for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1994)48ITD164Indore
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 6-2-1992 of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1986-87 in the case of the assessee-firm M/s. Jewells Emporium, the revenue is in appeal with the objection that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 2,29,028.2. A survey operation under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 30-9-1985 at the business premises of the assessee. It is alleged that the assessee did not produce books of accounts relevant to the assessment year 1985-86 and the current cash book was written up to 13-8-1985 only. It is also alleged that ledger for the current year was not prepared and there was no rough cash book or any other record for the period from 13-8-1985 to 30-9-1985. The survey party prepared inventory of the stock with the help of the partner of the firm Shri Suresh Kumar and estimated the total value of stock at Rs. 1,75,000.The Assessing Officer considered that material and required the assessee to explain the stock position. The asse'ss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1993)47ITD429Indore
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 25-2-1992 of the CIT(A)-I, Indore for the Assessment year 1988-89, the Revenue is in appeal on the following grounds: (i) The CIT(A) erred in allowing tanker bharai at Rs. 3,137 and Mehta Sukhadi at Rs. 25,515 disallowed by the AO. (ii) The CIT(A) erred in reducing the tanker plying income estimated by the AO at Rs. 1,25,000 to Rs. 2,000 only. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in reducing disallowance out of vehicle expenses from 1/3 to 1/4 and also erred in reducing telephone expenses from Rs. 39,750 to Rs. 3,500. (iv) TheCIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 90,000 made by the A.O. on the basis of system of accounting regularly followed by the assessee. (v) The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14,500 for not charging interest from sister concern. (vi) The CIT(A) erred in deleting interest charged under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act.3. The facts as to claim of Rs. 25,515 on account of Mehta Sukhadi and of Rs. 3,137 on account of tanker ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1994)50TTJIndore375
Aggrieved by the order dt. 21st Oct., 1992 of the CIT(A) for the asst.yr. 1989-90, the assessee-company is in appeal on the following grounds of objections : (i) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 89,170, being the amount of national interest on advances given to sister concern.(ii) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 6,75,000, being service charges paid to M/s. Souvenirs Chemicals Private Limited for effecting sales and also for procurement of raw materials.(iii) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 15,000 put of expenses.(iv) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in forcing upon the assessee the deduction of depreciation not claimed by the assessee.(v) The CIT(A) erred in not holding that the deduction under S. 80-HHC of the IT Act, 1961, was allowable before allowing deduction under S.32AB of the Act.(vi) The CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction under Ss. 80HH and 80-I of the Act was not allowab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1994)49ITD290Indore
1. The revenue as also the assessee are in appeal against the order dated 25th July, 1991, of the CIT(A). Both these appeals are, therefore, disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The first grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to allow depreciation on factory building.2. The assessee claimed depreciation on an industrial shed acquired from Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) under an agreement for a consideration of Rs. 1,45,360 payable in instalments.The AO disallowed the claim when he noted that the assessee had neither paid the full amount of price nor the deed of conveyance stood registered in its favour. The AO held that till the property was conveyed to the assessee, it could not become the owner thereof. The claim for depreciation was, therefore, disallowed.In appeal, the Id. CIT(A) referring to the instructions of the CBDT regarding allowance of depreciation on assets acquired under such agreements directe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1993)46TTJIndore635
Aggrieved by the order dt. 10th Sept., 1992 of the CIT(A) for the asst.yr. 1989-90, the assessee is in appeal on the following grounds of objections : (i) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of investment allowance of Rs. 36,18,035 made by the Assessing Officer.(ii) The CIT(A) erred in confirming of the addition of Rs. 10,96,175 made by the Assessing Officer for alleged excessive consumption of coal and further erred in enhancing the said addition by Rs. 2,08,343.(iii) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,26,137 out of the addition of Rs. 1,42,075 made by the Assessing Officer for alleged undisclosed sale of coal ash.(iv) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,000 out of Rs. 25,000 made by the Assessing Officer by making disallowance of the total claim of expenditure.(v) The CIT(A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer, to compute the profits under S. 115J after considering the depreciation and investment allowance and brought forward ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1993)47ITD591Indore
1. After making adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of Income-tax Act, 1961, the book profit under Section 115J of the Act was worked out at Rs. 10,22,959 and thus the total income @ 30 per cent was determined at Rs. 3,06,890. Net profit of the assessee as per Profit & Loss account for the instant assessment year 1989-90 was Rs. 17,27,166. In the immediate preceding year (1988-89), the total loss including unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 17,74,568 was Rs. 24,78,775; and the business loss excluding unabsorbed depreciation was Rs. 7,04,207. According to the assessee, for the purpose of computation of income under Section 115J it was entitled to set off of Rs. 17,74,568 which was lesser than Rs. 24,78,775, However, the interpretation of the Assessing Officer was that the net loss as per Profit. & Loss account should not include the amount of unabsorbed depreciation and as such it was Rs. 7,04,207. He, therefore, compared the loss of Rs. 7,04,207 with the amount of unabsorbed deprec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1993)47TTJIndore96
Levy of penalty of Rs. 1,500 under S. 273(2)(aa) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1980-81, having been unsuccessfully assailed in appeal before the CIT(A), is being reagitated by the assessee firm in this appeal.2. Learned representatives of the parties are heard. At the outset it may be stated that the Assessing Officer while levying the penalty under S. 273(2)(aa) did not care to look into the ingredients of the said provision. There should be satisfaction that the assessee has furnished the revised estimate of advance tax which was untrue to his knowledge or belief. No attempt was made by the Assessing Officer to show as to in what manner the revised estimate of advance tax was untrue to the knowledge or belief of the assessee. He simply presumed on the basis of the assessed income that the estimate of advance tax was untrue. He thereby did not even allege that such estimate was untrue to the knowledge or belief of the assessee. Such type of penalty order conspicuously show t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (1993)46TTJIndore655
Aggrieved by the order dt. 16th March, 1992 of the CIT(A), for the asst. yr. 1989-90, the assessee-company is in appeal on the following grounds of objection : (i) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 45,11,000 under S. 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961.(ii) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 2,14,756 under S. 37(2A) of the Act.(iii) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the part of the disallowance out of the disallowance of Rs. 91,302 made by the Assessing Officer.(iv) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 26,926 relating to provident fund penalty.2. M/s. Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. is the sister concern of the assessee-company, inasmuch as that Shri B. K. Modi is a Director in both the companies. The other directors of the companies or their family members and near relations. The Assessing Officer on the basis of Tax Audit Report found the assessee had made cash payments in excess of Rs. 10,000 totaling to Rs. 45,11,000. It was explained by the a...
Tag this Judgment!