Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2004)87TTJIndore627
In the aforesaid appeals one preferred by the assessee and another by the department, the same first appellate order is the subject-matter, hence, both appeals are being disposed of vide a consolidated order.The assessee has questioned the first appellate order mainly on the following grounds that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in: (i) estimating income from pathology at Rs. 40,000 against Rs. 27,040 shown, (ii) sustaining an addition of Rs. 10,000 under section 69 towards investments in purchase of plot, (iii) sustaining an addition of Rs. 1,01,150 under section 69 towards investments in construction of house property, (iv) sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,050 being cash credit in the name of Shri Kailashchandra, and (v) not adjudicating the point about levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B.Besides above, the learned authorised representative prays for allowing the following additional ground for consideration and adjudication of the Tribunal since the issue ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2004)89ITD84Indore
1. In this appeal, assessee has challenged the impugned order passed Under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ujjain. The brief facts of the case are that a return was filed declaring income of Rs. 2630937/- on 30.11.99 which was processed Under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 31.3.2000. Upon examination of records, Ld. CIT found that auditors in their audit report Under Section 44AB had commented that sales vouchers were not available with assessee and sales-tax department had levied penalty of Rs. 18125/-. It was further found that assessee had declared turn over of Rs. 59353524/- on which net profit of per profit and loss account was Rs. 2563882/- which was against decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Badri Prasad Bhagwandas & Co. v. CIT 82 Taxman 109 in which it was held that if proper books were not maintained by a liquor contractor then profit should be assessed at 5% of sales and sales were to be estimated at 2 1/2 times of the licence fee. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2004)89TTJIndore770
The issues raised in these appeals, all preferred by the assessee, are interconnected. Therefore, these appeals are being disposed of vide a consolidated order.2. ITA No. 75/Ind/2002-The order of the learned Commissioner withdrawing registration granted under section 12A of the Act to the society has been impugned by the assessee mainly on the following grounds that- (i) it is illegal and without jurisdiction, perverse, prejudicial and in utter disregard of the canons of justice (Ground Nos. 1 and 2), (ii) the learned Commissioner has erred in passing the order under section 12A of the Act which is inserted with effect from 1-4-1997 and which is not applicable for cancelling or withdrawing the registration granted on 29-1-1986 under section 12A of the Income Tax Act when no application for registration was pending before CIT (Ground No. 3), (iii) the ordet impugned is conspicuously silent as to what material was taken by the learned CIT into consideration, it amounts to violation of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2003)85ITD316Indore
computed deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I on refund of excise duty Invocation of provision of section 263 was not justified as Supreme Court's decision in Sterling Food's case was not applicable because refund of excise duty was derived from manufacture of goods exported and thus entitled to deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I.Invocation of provision of section 263 was not justified as Supreme Court's decision in Sterling Food's case was not applicable because refund of excise duty was derived from manufacture of goods exported and thus entitled to deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I.As far as refund of excise duty is concerned, Tribunal agrees with assessee that it has been received on goods manufactured by assessee, therefore, the ratio of Sterling Food's case is not applicable, therefore, the order of Commissioner on the point of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I in respect of refund of excise duty was not valid.Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2003)85ITD144Indore
1. In this appeal, assessee has raised three grounds of appeal, which basically relate to one issue i.e. confirmation of penalty of Rs. 90,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The brief facts are that assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 74,069 and also declared agricultural income amounting to Rs. 1,71,137. Upon enquiry regarding agricultural income, copies of bills for purchase of seeds, insecticides and sale of agricultural produce were filed. The land was shown to have been taken on lease from one Shri Chogalal Govindram of Village Pivdai. Assessee was asked to produce Shri Chogalal which assessee failed. Thereafter some enquiries were conducted and it was found that some of the land which was supposed to have been taken on lease by the assessee did not belong to the Chogalal but was a Government land and, therefore, there could have been no valid lease for this land. It was also found that no agricultural operations were conducted on the land which was shown to have been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2003)79TTJIndore88
1. In these two appeals by assessee, order of CIT(A) has been challenged for imposition of penalty under Sections 271D and 271E. As both the appeals relate to same assessment year and penalty has been imposed emerging from same facts both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.In this appeal, assessee has raised 10 grounds but at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that all the grounds relate to only one issue i.e., confirmation of imposition of penalty amounting to Rs. 48,500 under Section 271D of the Act. The brief facts of the case are during assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has taken certain sums in cash and repayments were made in cash which were in violation of Section 269SS and 269T, therefore, penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E were initiated. During penalty proceedings it was submitted that assessee was located in a small town and was not having any bank account. It was also submitted tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2004)88TTJIndore717
These are cross-appeals by assessee and revenue and some of the issues raised are common, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.First ground of appeal relates to confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 22.18 lakhs as revenue expenditure for raising of loan required for the purpose of business. The brief facts are that assessee- company claimed deduction of Rs. 22.18 lakhs on account of debenture issue expenses.Before assessing officer, reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 80 ITR 415 (Bom).Assessing Officer observed that these two decisions relate to allowability of expenditure as deduction under section 10(2)(xv) and the same were not applicable to the case of assessee because under the old Act there was no provision corresponding to provision of section 35D of Income Tax Act, 1961. He also found that letter of offer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2003)86ITD637Indore
1. Citing instruction No. 1903 of the CBDT, the learned AR has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal involving tax effect up to Rs. 25,000. Both the parties have filed written submissions in support of their respective contentions and have also argued their case at length with the support of decided cases.2. The main contention of the learned A.R. is that the subordinate income-tax officials are under obligation to follow the instructions issued by the CBDT and filing of the present appeal by the department under the tax effect of Rs. 25,000 is not maintainable. The learned AR cites the following decisions in support: - (i) CWT v. Executors of Late Shri D.T. Udeshi [1991] 189 ITR 319 (Bom. ) (x) Aradhana Oil Mills v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 439 to 441 (Ind.) of 1996]Collector, Central Excise v. Usha Martin Industries [1977] 7 SCC 47.3. In opposition, the learned DR submits that instruction No. 1903 has been issued under Sub-section (1) of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2003)84ITD178Indore
1. The assessee has impugned the block assessment on several grounds.At the outset of the hearing of the appeal, the learned Senior Departmental Representative has, however, raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the very appeal on the basis that in view of the provisions of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act, the assessee has not paid the admitted tax before filing the present appeal. He draws our attention to the letter dt. 19th Oct., 2001, of the office of the Dy. GIT (erstwhile). Investigation, Circle-I, Indore, whereby he has been informed that only Rs. 22,63,600 have been paid before filing of the present appeal by the assessee out of Rs. 26,47,800 i.e. the tax payable as per the block return. This fact has not been denied by the learned authorised representative of the assessee. He, however, opposes the objection on the basis that Section 249(4) of the Act cannot be read in isolation of Chapter XX-A and the present appeal has been filed under Section 253(1) of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2002)77TTJIndore995
In these appeals, at the outset, learned Senior Departmental Representative raised a preliminary objection. According to him, these appeals are not maintainable because of two reasons. Firstly, the assessee has not paid admitted tax as per mandatory requirement and secondly, the assessee is not aggrieved party. Therefore, he had no right to file these appeals. As far as first objection is concerned, he read out the provisions of section 249(4). He further submitted that though assessee had originally filed returns declaring nil income, later on some surrenders were made as per detailed letter of the assessee dated 20-11-1996, and some of the returns were revised accordingly. In this regard, he also pointed out that proviso to section 158BC was inserted with effect from 1-1-1997, by which right to file revised returns was withdrawn. However, the assessee has filed revised returns before that date, therefore, the provision is applicable. He contended that section 249(4) is very clear an...
Tag this Judgment!