Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
1. All these appeals by Revenue are directed to be disposed of by a common order as the issues in dispute are stated to be common. The learned Departmental Representative, however, desired to address in ITA Nos. 607/Jd/2007 and 608/Jd/2007 as a lead case which is an appeal by the Revenue against the separate orders dt. 28th May, 2007 of learned CIT(A), Jodhpur. On the consent of the parties this request was allowed. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A)-I, Jodhpur has erred in: 1. Deleting the trading addition made by the AO on account of low GP rate by invoking provision of Section 145 of IT Act. 2. Directing to allow deduction under Section 10BA on account of DEPB and DDB receipts ignoring the fact that DEPB and DDB are not part of export business profit from eligible articles or things.2. The first common ground relates to deletion of the trading addition of Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 3,00,000 made by the AO in asst. yrs. 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively, o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Jodh.)542
1. This appeal by the assessee is against the order dt. 17th Sept., 2007 of the learned CIT{A), Jodhpur.2. Grounds in appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in sustaining the impugned order before him made under Section 154 of the Act by the AO as the same was bad in law and bad in facts and also without jurisdiction of the AO framing the impugned order, amongst other, the action was also beyond the purview and powers of Section 154 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in sustaining the action of the AO in considering the entire sale proceeds of DEPB as an income of the appellant for reworking the deduction under Section 80HHC claimed by the appellant. As a matter of law, it is the notional profit element has to be taken into account and considered for the purpose. Thus the AO's action of making addition of Rs. 32,87,526 was erroneously and unjudicially confirmed by the learned CIT(A). ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Jodh.)841
1. This appeal of the assessee for asst. yr. 2003-04 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dt. 5th Jan., 2007.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee had sold a property situated at Khasra No.829/1/751 of Marudhar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jodhpur (Narpat Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur) for a sale consideration of Rs. 11,31,000 but as per the sale deed the Sub-Registrar had valued the cost of this property for the purpose of registration charges at Rs. 14,96,000. The AO was of the opinion that provisions of Section 50C of the Act are applicable in this case. As per this section, if the property is sold for a value less than the DLC rate, it is to be deemed that the property was sold at the value taken by the Sub-Registrar. The assessee was show caused in this regard by the learned AO and the assessee vide his letter dt. 12th Feb., 2006 replied that since a legal suit was going on with regard to this land and there w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Jodh.)116
1. These two cross-appeals--one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue--arise out of the order passed by CIT(A) on 20th Sept., 2005 in relation to the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. First four grounds of the assessee's appeal were not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative. These, therefore, stand dismissed.3. Fifth ground is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 15,97,334 made under Section 68 of the Act.4. Briefly stated the facts of the case arc that the assessee continued to derive income as sub-broker from dealing in shares in his proprietorship concern called as M/s S.S. Securities. Survey under Section 133A was carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 6th Nov., 2000. Cash book was found to have been written upto 31st Oct., 2000. After taking into account the incomings and outgoings from 1st Nov., 2000 to 6th Nov., 2000, the cash balance as per cash book was worked out at Rs. 23,069 as against cash on physical verification found at Rs. 20,031, thereby ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Jodh.)405
1. These are cross-appeals arising out of the Order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 28th Nov., 2005 in relation to block assessment Order dt.31st Jan., 2005 passed Under Section 158BC r/w Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that a search and seizure operation was conducted on 20th Dec, 2002 at the factory premises of M/s White & White Minerals (P) Ltd., Borunda, Jodhpur Under Section 132(1) of the Act. Simultaneously, a survey Under Section 133A of the Act was also covered at M/s White & White Minerals (P) Ltd., Jodhpur Tower at Jodhpur. The search and seizure operation at the factory premises situated at Borunda started on 20th Dec., 2002. During the course of search, inventory of stock was prepared after physical verification. Statements of the employees were recorded and the books of accounts found were seized as per the inventory. A cash amount of Rs. 1,46,000 was also found out of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Jodh.)834
1. These are two appeals by the same assessee for consecutive assessment years viz., 1992-93 and 1993-94 are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.2. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) dt. 10th Sept., 2007.3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee is a carpenter, who derived, income from work of carpentry and from interest, besides having agricultural income. He did not maintain regular books of accounts. A survey under Section 133A was conducted on 19th Nov., 1997 at his shop on the basis of a tax-evasion petition (TEP). It was found during this survey that he had invested Rs. 71,000 and Rs. 55,364 the relevant year, therefore, proceedings under Section 147/148 were initiated against him for three assessment years. The assessment order for asst. yr. 1992-93 was made on 18th March, 2002.The AO made various additions including the addition of Rs. 71,000.These additions were upheld by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Jodh.)534
1. All the above captioned appeals, which have been filed by the assessee, are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. All these appeals emanate from penalty orders passed under Section 271(1)(c) for asst. yrs. 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-03. The facts of all the three years are mutatis mutandis on identical, but we are narrating the facts of the appeal for asst. yr.1999-2000, for ready reference.2. The appellant/assessee is a private limited company and derives income from construction of houses as per standard plan on a lump sum amount basis. The company executed extra work as directed by the customers for which actual expenditure incurred was to be reimbursed. A search under Section 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was conducted at various premises of the group of the assessee on 6th June, 2003. In response to notice issued under Section 153A of the Act, on 1st Nov., 2003, the assessee filed return on 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Jodh.)98
1. This appeal by the assessee for asst. yr. 2002-03 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 2nd July, 2007 raises the following grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission, material and evidence on record, the learned CFT(A) has grossly erred in law and in facts in maintaining the assessee income of the assessee appellant at Rs. 4,31,510 as against Rs. 2,78,470 disclosed by him in the return of income and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing ground of appeal No. 1 the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in maintaining the disallowance of Rs. 70,000 made by the learned AO out of generator running expenses. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing ground of appeal No. 1 the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in maintaining the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Jodh.)283
1. The appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 29th April, 2002, which pertains to block period comprising of block period asst. yrs. 1990-91 to 1999-2000 and upto 29th July, 1999. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in: (i) Directing the AO to make addition only of profit element i.e., 10.5 per cent GP involved in the sales of Rs. 3,11,893 instead of addition of Rs. 3,11,893, made by the AO on account of shortage of stock treating it as unaccounted sales for the period 1st April, 1999 till the date of search where purchases and expenses were fully accounted for in the books and debited to the trading account. (ii) Directing the AO to adopt the undisclosed sales at Rs. 41,35,040 only, instead of Rs. 2,29,50,883 estimated by the AO, and to apply to 10.5 per cent GP rate and thereby granting a relief of Rs. 23,04,315, whereas the AO had rightly estimated the undisclosed sales in case o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 16-7-2007 for assessment year 2004-05.2. The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the denial of the claim of agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 90,627. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 90,627 as income from other sources out of total agricultural income of Rs. 1,36,047 claimed by the assessee.The assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 42,570 and also showing agricultural income of Rs. 2,48,427. During the course of assessment proceedings, the figure of agricultural income was substituted by Rs. 1,36,047 as the amount of Rs. 2,48,427 represented gross agricultural receipts. In support of agricultural income, the assessee had filed copies of Girdawari report, sale receipts and electricity bills. A statement of the assessee was recorded wherein he deposed that he owned 57 Bighas of land out of which 20 Bighas were irrigated. It was also stated that th...
Tag this Judgment!