Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)98ITD50(Jodh.)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 24-7-2000 in relation to the assessment year 1996-97.2. The only ground raised by the revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 5,98,440 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unrecorded transportation charges.3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was a consignment agent for supply of explosive goods to I.C.I. India Ltd. in Rajasthan. As per information available on the records, a survey under Section 133A was carried out in the case of Pooja Roadlines, Udaipur and some bill books were impounded under Section 131 of the Act. On scrutiny of the bill books of M/s. Pooja Roadlines, it was noticed that the vans owned by the assessee had been used for transportation of goods to various places. On examination of the details, it was revealed that the assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s. India Explosives Ltd. that the trading items of the principal company be suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Jodh.)646
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A), on 24th July, 2000 in relation to the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The only ground raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 5,98,440 made by the AO on account of unrecorded transportation charges.3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a consignment agent for supply of explosive goods to ICI India Ltd. in Rajasthan. As per information available on the records, a survey under Section 133A was carried out in the case of Pooja Roadlines, Udaipur and some bill books were impounded under Section 131 of the Act. On scrutiny of the bill books of M/s Pooja Roadlines, it was noticed that the vans owned by the assessee had been used for transportation of goods to various places. On examination of the details, it was revealed that the assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s India Explosives Ltd. that the trading items of the principal company be supplied at Udaipur. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)97ITD127(Jodh.)
In confirmity with the majority of the members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who have heard these cases, for the reasons cited in the orders, we adjudicate the issues apropos of the points of difference in favour of the assessee.The learned counsel for the assessee sought permission to raise the following additional ground of appeal : "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28-1-1999 is barred by limitation as per provisions of section 158BE(1)(a) and as such the same is liable to be quashed." It was stated that the aforesaid additional ground was also raised before the Third Member at the time of hearing before him, but the same was not allowed to be raised at that stage.In support of the arguments for the admission of additional ground before this Bench, it was stated that the appeals were originally fixed for hearing from time to time a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Jodh.)385
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 10th Sept., 2004, in relation to asst. yr. 1998-99.2. In the first ground, the assessee has assailed the validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust and its objects, inter alia, include welfare of general society. The trust came into existence on 17th Oct., 1995, and was granted registration by the Registrar of Societies on the same day.Registration under Section. 12AA was granted by the CIT on 14th Aug., 1997. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31st Dec, 1999, declaring nil income, duly accompanied with the audit report in Form No. 10B. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 21st March, 2000. Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 was issued on 28th May, 2001, on the basis of reasons recorded and forming part of the assessment order as under: "During th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Jodh.)1039
1. In conformity with the majority of the members of the income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who have heard these cases, for the reasons cited in the orders, we adjudicate the issues apropos of the points of difference in favour of the assessee.2. The ld. counsel for the assessee sought permission to raise the following additional ground of appeal: "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 28.1.1999 is barred by limitation as per provisions of Section 158BE(1)(a) and as such the same is liable to be quashed." It was stated that the aforesaid additional ground was also raised before the Third Member at the time of hearing before him, but the same was not allowed to be raised at that stage.3. In support of the arguments for the admission of additional ground before this Bench, it was stated that the appeals were originally fixed for hearing from time to time and eve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Jodh.)827
of proper inquiriesHeld: Acceptance of method of stock valuation of assessee by the AO was justified as the assessee was following regular method of cost or market price which was lower excluding freight and octroi, therefore, same could not be held as erroneous and prejudicial order. Revision thus, not valid.This is an appeal by the assessee-company against the order of CIT passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), on 7-11-2000.The assessment order in this case was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 30-10-1998, for assessment year 1996-97. The CIT found this order to be erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT issued notice to the assessee under section 263 dated 3-10-2000, vide which he pointed out two errors on the basis of tax audit report vide Sch. 13 of accounting policy and notes of accounts, one in the valuation of the closing stock and the other in closing stock of finished goo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Jodh.)1106
1. These two appeals by the assessee emanate from the orders passed by the CIT under Section 263 on 8th Nov., 2000, and 20th Dec., 2000, in relation to asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98. Since common issues have been raised in both the appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First issue raised in both the appeals is against the valuation of closing stock.3. The learned CIT noted from Schedule 13 of the balance sheet that the inventory was valued at cost or the realisable value whichever is lower and the cost was determined by excluding freight and other expenses incurred in bringing goods to the present condition and location. As such, inward cartage/freight/octroi, etc. in respect of raw material was not included in the valuation of closing stock. The learned CIT held the order of the AO, accepting the valuation of the closing stock as discussed above, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Jodh.)147
1. This appeal by the assessee, namely, Sumerpur Truck Operators Union is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 13th July, 1996, which pertains to asst. yr. 1998-99.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. 5,29,240 on 27th Oct., 1998. The returns of income accompanied the requisite audit report, statements of the liabilities and the assets, general fund account, political fund account and computation of total income, below which a note was given that this income of the assessee is exempt from tax being eligible for exemption under Section 10(24) of the Act.3. But, the learned AO was of the opinion that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 10(24) of the Act. The truck operators are usually truck-owners, of course, few of them also employed drivers but most of them drive their truck themselves. The exemption under Section 10(24) is available only if the aim of the assessee-union was to regulate t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Jodh.)626
1. This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee emanate from the order passed by the CIT(A) on 16th July, 1998, in relation to the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. First grievance of the Revenue is against the allowing of relief of Rs. 14,798 out of addition of Rs. 16,262 made by the AO on account of travelling expenses.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the AO observed that the travelling expenses in this year had increased tremendously in comparison with the preceding year. On the analysis of details, it was found that a sum of Rs. 1,464 was incurred on account of railway ticket of Smt. Urmila Jain, wife of the partner. It was further noticed that a sum of Rs. 10,840 represented the travelling expenses of customers. The balance amount was the travelling expenses incurred on inspectors. In total, a sum of Rs. 16,262 was added. In the first appeal, the learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 1,464 being the amount of travelling expenses relating to Smt. Urmi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Jodh.)164
1. This is an appeal of the assessee for asst. yr. 2001-02, which is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 31st Aug., 2004.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deals in trading of photocopy machines, DG sets, etc. and also does photocopy job-work in addition to running STD booths. The assessee is a proprietor of two concerns namely M/s Kamdhenu Enterprises, Jodhpur and M/s Kamdhenu Copiers. He filed returns of income for asst. yr. 2001-02 on 31st Oct., 2001 declaring the total income of Rs. 71,840. Initially this return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. But, subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee declared results for the last two years as under : 3. But, the AO rejected th e books of account of the assessee and made trading additions. The AO also made various additions, out of which some are the subject-matter of this appeal and those shall be discussed with the relevant facts one by one.4. The assessee-appellant has ta...
Tag this Judgment!