Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(JP.)92
1. This appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of learned C1T(A)-II, Jaipur dt. 25th July, 2007 for the asst. yr. 2003-04. The assessee has raised the following grounds: Ground No. 1: That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned C1T(A)-II, Jaipur is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming disallowance of deduction under Section 80JJA of Rs. 26,16,886 made by AO on account of misconception of the fact and alleged that subsidy granted by the Agricultural Department, Government of Rajasthan against sales of bio-fertilizer manufactured by the assessee is not an income derived from assessee's business of producing bio-fertilizers and not included in business income for the purpose of allowing deduction under Section 80JJA of the IT Act, 1961.2. We have heard the parties. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that me assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80JJA on the subsidy amount of Rs. 32,15,780 which was received by the assessee from Agricult...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(JP.)613
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 1st Dec., 2006 for the asst. yr. 2003-04. The assessee has filed the cross-objection.2. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has not pressed the ground No. 1 of the C.O. Hence the same is dismissed as not pressed.3. The Revenue has taken the solitary ground that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee firm is eligible for deduction under s. 80-IB of the Act considering that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing or production activities and consequently erred in directing the AO to allow deduction of Rs. 2,62,47,482 as claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IB of the IT Act.4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from manufacturing and sale of slate and sand stone in the name and style of World Wide Stone at Deoli District Tonk. Its main activity of business is mining of slate and sand stone boulders from its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(JP.)351
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 29th Jan., 2007 for the asst. yr. 2003-04.2. In ground No. 1, the assessee is aggrieved that the impugned assessment under Section 143(3) dt. 17th March, 2006 is bad in law and the same may be quashed.3. The ground No. 1 of the assessee is general in nature which needs no adjudication by us.4. In ground No. 2.1, the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned assessment framed by the AO, assessing business income in the hands of the appellant though it was an educational institution. The assessment so framed and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is being without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law and the same may be quashed.5. In ground No. 2.2, the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the taxing the whole income of Rs. 1,90,01,630 which is otherwise exempt under Section 10(23C) as claimed by the appellant. The inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(JP.)103
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 27th Oct., 2006 for the asst. yr. 2003 04.2. In ground No. 1, the assessee has prayed that the impugned assessment order under Section 143(3) dt. 25th Jan., 2006 is bad in law and on facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and the same may be quashed.3. In ground No. 2, the assessee has prayed that the action taken under Section 147 r/w Section 148 of the Act and proceedings there under are contrary to the provisions of law and facts and the impugned notice issued under Section 148 dt. 8th April, 2004 may be quashed and consequently the impugned assessment order under Sectioons 143 and 148 dt. 25th Jan., 2006 may also be quashed.4. In ground No. 3, the assessee has prayed that the impugned assessment order is bad in law and on facts inasmuch as no notice under Section 143(2) as required to be served within a period 12 months from the end of the month in which the return ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(JP.)973
1. The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the grounds that the learned CIT(A) has erred in: 1. upholding the assessment order under Section 143(3), dt. 29th March, 2005 as valid one; 2. partly sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,20,000 as against Rs. 1,70,000 made by the AO on account of unexplained opening capital; 3. partly sustaining the addition of Rs. 18,864 as against Rs. 48,864 made by the AO on account of household withdrawals; and 2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of the orders of the lower authorities, material available on record and the decisions relied upon by them.3. It is general in nature hence does not need independent adjudication.4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had submitted balance sheet, capital account and cash flow chart along with his letter dt. 23rd Dec, 2004 showing opening capital at Rs. 1,89,286.49 in the balance sheet and cash in hand at the end of the year at R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(JP.)253
1. The assessee has impugned first appellate order on the grounds that the learned CIT(A) has erred in: 1 & 2. upholding the action of the AO taken under Section 147 r/w Section 148 and consequently the impugned assessment framed under Section 143(3)/148 dt. 13th Dec. 2006; 3. confirming addition of Rs. 16,000 as against Rs. 32,685 made by the AO on account of disallowance of sales discount; 4. confirming addition of Rs. 10,000 as against Rs. 39.960 made by the AO on account of disallowance of travelling expenses; 5. confirming addition of Rs. 16,005 as against Rs. 25,609 made by AO on account of disallowance of transportation expenses; 6. confirming addition of Rs. 23,520 made by the AO on account of household withdrawals; 7. confirming the treatment given by AO as deeming the agricultural income from other sources and confirming the addition of Rs. 23,500 out of Rs. 28,000 made by AO; 8. confirming the addition of Rs. 61,000 on account of Smt. Mamta Gupta as undisclosed income; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(JP.)364
1. Both these appeals are the cross-appeals filed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 26th March, 2007 for the asst. yr. 2004-05.2. The ground No. 1 of the assessee is relating to rejection of books of accounts and invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act.The ground No. 2 of the assessee is relating to estimation of gross profit of the manufacturing business of the assessee eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC(2)(a)(iii) at Rs. 67,73.006.The ground No. 3 of the assessee is relating to restricting the claim of deduction under Section 80-IC(2)(a)(iii) to Rs. 2,70,546 against deduction claimed at Rs. 3,32,89,399.The ground No. 4 of the assessee is relating to exclusion of a sum of Rs. 2,90,51,228 from the computation of deduction under Section 80-IC(2)(a)(iii).The solitary ground of the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 made under Section 69C.3. We have heard the parties. The brief facts of the case are that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(JP.)552
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 28th Feb., 2006 for the asst. yr. 2002-03.2. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has not pressed the ground Nos. 1 and 2. Hence the same is dismissed as not pressed.3. In ground No. 3, the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming a partial disallowance by the AO of the deduction claimed under Section 80-IB and also further erred in enhancing the income by withdrawing full deduction under Section 80-IB.4. We have heard the parties The brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm continues to derive income from manufacturing of wooden and iron handicrafts items and exporting the same. The assessee has claimed 100 per cent deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act against the declared profit of Rs. 44,11,999 in his IT return for which he has also filed a report in form No. 10CCB audited by the auditor. The AO observed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
1. The revenue has questioned first appellate order on the grounds that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding: (2) Action of assessing officer in making adjustment of Rs. 1,14,24,000 in respect of provision for deferred taxation while computing the book profit for the purpose of Section 115 JB.2. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the lower authorities, material available on record and the decision relied upon by them.3. The relevant facts are that for assessment year 2002-03 the assessee-company had filed its return of income in Form No. 1 at Rs. 71,96,700 computed in the normal course as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the tax payable on the total income for the relevant previous year was less than 71/2 per cent of the book profit, computation of tax was made as per provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. The book profit so computed was Rs. 4,51,95,130. The assessing officer in the order under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(JP.)353
1. Both these appeals are the cross-appeals filed against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 31st Jan., 2005 for the asst. yr. 2001-02. 1.1 Rs. 14,36,198 : The learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the application of provisions of Section 145. The provisions so applied and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, the same may kindly be quashed. Consequently, the trading addition of Rs. 14,36,198 may also kindly be deleted in full. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in applying the G.P. rate of 22.5 per cent as against 21.65 per cent declared by the appellant and in partly sustaining the additions upto Rs. 14,36,198. The application of G.P. rate so partly confirmed is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the addition of Rs. 14,36,198 may kindly be deleted in full.3. The solitary ground of the Revenue is that the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!