Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Jodh.)190
1. This appeal by the assessee-firm is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 9th July, 2003, which pertains to asst. yr. 1995-96.2. The assessee-firm filed its returns of income on 30th Nov., 1995 declaring total income of Rs. 11,640. The firm was dissolved on 11th Aug., 1994 and one bus No. RJ-13/P-285 was sold by the firm for Rs. 1,40,000. The other two buses were retained by other partner namely Shri Ravi Kant, at a price of Rs. 2,25,000. The AO wanted to tax the short-term capital gain in the hands of the firm. Therefore, notice under Section 154 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee replies that in the case of partner Shri Ravi Kant, who took over the business of the firm, short-term capital gain had been duly considered.Thereafter, the learned AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act.The assessee had shown total booking receipts at Rs. 3,10,737 and after claiming the expenses of Rs. 1,22,030, had shown GP of Rs. 1,88,706 which gave a GP rate of 6.7 per cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)278ITR214(Jodh.)
Since there is a difference of opinion between the two members, being Judicial Member and Accountant Member, constituting this Bench of ITAT (Jodhpur) on the point of interpretation of the expression "total income of assessee as computed by A.O" contained in Section 253(6), being the basis for calculating the prescribed fee payable on filing of appeal before the Tribunal, the following point is stated with the request that the Hon'ble President I.T.A.T., may kindly nominate a Third Member for deciding the point/question stated below as required Under Section 255(4) of I.T. Act 1961 :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fee payable for filing of appeal before Tribunal as per Section 253(6) of IT, Act 1961 should be calculated on the basis of the amount of total income as computed by A.O. after giving effect to the order of first appellate authority or on the basis of the amount of total income as computed by A.O. in the first/regular assessment?" 1. By this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Jodh.)632
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 26.2.1999 in relation to F.Y. 1997-98.2. The solitary effective ground projects the grievance of the Revenue as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in cancelling the IDS demand of Rs. 240,564/- for failure to deduct tax at source Under Section 194-C and interest charged thereon Under Section 201(1), ignoring the fact that the person responsible for making contract payments was not having any certificate/authorization for making payment without TDS for the period from 16.10.1997 to 31.12.1997." 3. Briefly stated, the facts apropos of the controversy are that the assessee is a person responsible for making payments to contractors, deducting tax at source and filing returns Under Section 206 of the Act. During the Financial Year 1997-98, return Under Section 206 was filed with the Income-tax Officer (TDS) Chittorgarh. On scrutiny of the same, it was noticed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)96ITD398(Jodh.)
This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 26-2-1999 in relation to financial year 1997-98.The solitary effective ground projects' the grievance of the revenue as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in cancelling the TDS demand of Rs. 2,40,564 for failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C and interest charged thereon under section 201(1), ignoring the fact that the person responsible for making contract payments was not having any certificate authorization for making payment without TDS for the period from 16-10-1997 to 31-12-1997." Briefly stated, the facts apropos of the controversy are that the assessee is a person responsible for making payments to contractors deducting tax at source and filing returns under section 206 of the Act. During the Financial year 1997-98, return under section 206 was filed with the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Chittorgarh. On scrutiny of the same, it was noticed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Jodh.)647
1. These are appeals for asst. yr. 1996-97, filed in relation to the order of the CIT(A), dt. 7th Jan., 2000, by the Department and dt. 28th Sept., 2003 by the assessee.2. The assessee-HUF deals in cotton and filed its return of income for asst. yr, 1996-97 on 29th Nov., 1996, by declaring net loss of Rs. 1,40,540, along with audited trading account, P&L a/c and balance sheet. The assessee derived income from business in cotton bales, income from interest and house property and dividends, etc. The learned AO made additions after making various disallowances and thus, computed the total income at positive figure of Rs. 1,85,170, against which the assessee filed appeal and the learned CIT(A) gave part relief. So, both the parties are aggrieved.3. The Department has challenged vide first ground the reduction of disallowance of loss from Rs. 2,75,946 to Rs. 1,00,088. The brief facts for this issue are that the assessee entered into twelve transactions of purchases and sales of fully p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Jodh.)764
1. These are six stay applications, which relate to the same assessee for asst. yrs. 1994-95, 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The details of returns of income assessed for these years is as below :Asst yr.Returned Assessed income As per assessed income after income appeal effect of CIT(A) order (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) Relief (Rs.) Sustained (Rs.)1994-95 46,530 21,92,652 13,30,668 8,61,9841996-97 64,550 12,34,322 2,49,790 9,84,5321997-98 96,830 14,10,830 2,22,446 12,46,6661998-99 1,48,780 14,26,697 2,83,000 11,43,6971999-2000 Rs. 1,78,333 Rs. 34,92,003 Rs. 9,83,213 Rs. 25,08,790 2. The total demand along with interest is stated to be Rs. 60,28,390 which includes interest of Rs. 39,45,198. It has been submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that these demands have been created by the Department with a view to take revenge with the assessee who is practising as a medical practitioner because he had got a police case registered against one of the ITOs, who was also arrested in a case on the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Jodh.)446
1. The appeal has -been filed by the assessee for asst. yr. 1998-99, against the order of CIT(A), Jodhpur, dt. 30th Oct., 2002.2. The first issue raised is against the sustained addition out of capital gains at Rs. 1,65,447.3. The AO had made total addition of Rs. 2,00,281 and the assessee had declared capital gain of Rs. 84,500 on account of sale of piece of land situated at Abadi land measuring 19,208 sq. ft. purchased at the rate of Rs. 101 per sq, ft. This land was sold by dividing it into 10 equal plots to 10 persons at a cost of Rs. 2,50,000 in the financial year 1997-98 and the assessee had shown capital gain at Rs. 84,500 by taking base value as on 1st April, 1981, at Rs. 50,000. But the AO took the cost of land as on 1st April, 1981, at Rs. 10,020 for 10 bigas of land and computed capital gain at Rs. 2,00,284, The learned AO had based his calculation on the report of sub-registrar, which related to sale of agricultural land. The case of the assessee is that the land in questi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Jodh.)509
1. All these appeals by the Department for asst. yrs. 1995-96 to 1997-98 and cross-objections by the assessee for asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98 involve almost identical facts, so these are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts for asst. yr. 1996-97 in ITA No. 296/Ju/2000 are taken up.3. The only issue raised in this appeal is that the assessee, who is an Adarthia, had filed returns and has declared loss, whereas the AO made an addition of Rs. 3,50,000 on account of agriculturists. The assessee filed returns declaring loss of Rs. 1,48,572 on 31st Oct., 1996 within due time. This addition has been made by treating the credit balance outstanding on the last date of accounting year in the account of agriculturists as ingenuine. The AO however, did accept the books of account of assessee as correct and fully verifiable which is quite evident from the observations in the assessment order. It is because of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Jodh.)927
1. This appeal by the assessee for asst. yr. 1997-98 is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 21st March, 2003.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant-firm derived income from excavation of marble blocks from its own mines for sale of slabs after sawing the same on its gang saw machine. In addition, the assessee also derived income from job works of sawing for third parties. The assessee-firm also purchases slabs from market and sells the same as he does in case of his own slabs excavated from his own mines. According to the assessee, all the purchases, sales, saw receipts and expenditure are fully and properly vouched. Stock of values per stock price and the system of valuation is consistent right from the date of commencement of business. The assessee-firm maintained regular books of account. The sawing register is maintained as per Excise Act. The survey under Section 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee-firm on 27th Dec, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Jodh.)573
1. In all these appeals for asst. yr. 1979-80 filed by different assessees the issues involved are almost identical. So, these are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. All these assessees had filed their respective appeals for asst. yr.1979-80 and the same had been accepted. Thereafter, search and seizure operation was carried out in the group of cases of one Shri Prem Raj Khiv Raj Singhvi in the year 1981 and on the information received from DDI, Bombay, vide his letter dt. 30th Dec., 1983, the assessments were reopened under Section 147(a)/148 after recording the reasons. The assessees had introduced respective cash in their accounts in the name of Shri Prem Raj Singhvi who was doing Hawala business and had lent entries to certain persons. On that basis, the assessment of all these assessees are reopened. However, the depositor had confirmed the deposit by him with all these assessees. The addition of Rs. 20,000, Rs. 40,000, Rs. 10,000 and 20,000 wer...
Tag this Judgment!