Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Jodh.)147
1. These cross-appeals-one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 15th March, 2002 in relation to the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. Since common issue is raised in both the appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. The first ground of the assessee's appeal, being general, does not call for any adjudication.4. Ground No. 2 was not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative. The same is, therefore, dismissed.5. Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal and ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal deal with the addition made on account of entries in diary.6. Briefly stated, the facts of these grounds are that a survey was conducted under Section 133A on 3rd and 4th Oct., 1996 at the business premises of M/s Rajasthan Commercial House, in which a diary containing transactions not recorded in the regular books was found. Photocopy of this diary, marked as Annex. 18, was obtai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)108TTJ(Jodh.)1014
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 10th April, 2003 which pertains to asst. yr. 1997-98.2. The assessee filed its return of income for asst. yr. 1997-98 on 29th Oct., 1997. The assessment was completed on 30th March, 2000 on a total income of Rs. 11,99,136. The appeal was decided by the learned CIT(A) on 8th Sept., 2000 and after that total income remained at Rs. 9,92,457.3. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Act stating therein that it had claimed expenditure of Rs. 3,40,498 being sales-tax pertaining to asst. yr. 1995-96, which was actually paid during the year relevant to assessment year under consideration. A copy of challan was filed along with the return of income. This amount remained unconsidered during the assessment proceedings. It was prayed that it being a mistake apparent on record should be rectified under Section 154 of the Act.4. The AO found after hearing the assessee that no such claim wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)111TTJ(Jodh.)418
1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 17th Feb., 2006 in relation to the asst. yr. 2002-03.2. First three grounds challenge the legality of the initiation of the reassessment proceedings.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee furnished its return of income on 31st Oct., 2002 claiming refund of Rs. 1,02,507. The AO treated the return as defective and issued notice on 31st March, 2003 enquiring about the contract receipts on which TDS of Rs. 1,38,400 was claimed. The assessee vide his reply dt. 20th May, 2003 explained the entire position that the gross contract receipts amounted to Rs. 65,94,595 and after considering certain expenses and making some further adjustments, the net freight receipts amounted to Rs. 8,59,685.42, which was to be reflected in the P&L a/c furnished along with the return for the year in question. In this reply, the assessee also furnished details of gross receipts, other adjustments and expense...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Jodh.)488
1. These are cross-appeals filed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 19th Dec., 2002 pertaining to asst. yr. 2000-01. These appeals are being decided by a common order.2. This is the appeal of the assessee, in which an additional ground of appeal has been taken. The additional ground is purely a legal ground and therefore, it was admitted and was taken as ground No. 5 of the appeal, after considering the oral objections of the learned Departmental Representative.3. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the assessee, Shri N.R. Mertia did not press ground No. 2. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are formal in nature. Thus, ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 stand dismissed.4. Thus, ground No. 5 (additional ground) and ground No. 1, only now survive for adjudication. Other grounds of this appeal stand dismissed.5. First, we will deal with ground No. 5, the additional ground, which relates to the action of the IT Inspector in taking statements during the cours...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT Under Section 263 on 23.08.2005 in relation to A.Y. 2001-02.2. The main grievance projected by the assessee in its appeal is against the denial of exemption Under Section 10B of the Act by the ld.CIT which was earlier allowed by the A.O. The facts apropos of this issue are that an assessment order Under Section 143(3) was passed by the ACIT on 30.09.2003. On the perusal of the assessment record it was found by the ld. CIT that the assessee had shown income from business to the tune of Rs. 11,19,910/- including income from fluctuation of foreign exchange at Rs. 10,62,107/- and entire income of Rs. 11.19 lakhs was claimed as exempt Under Section 10B of the Act. It was opined that the A.O. had not examined this aspect properly as to whether the income from fluctuation of foreign exchange fell under which head. It was further noted that the A.O. had not examined the issue regarding exemption Under Section 10B p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Jodh.)904
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 19th Aug., 2004, passed under Section 158BD r/w Section 158BC(c) for the block period comprising of asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1999-2000.2. The appellant has taken a legal ground as ground No. (1), which is extracted below: 1.A That the provisions of Section 158BD are not applicable at all as the house subject to search belongs to HUF. B There is no material to form the belief about the existence of undisclosed income, which requires to be taxed under Chapter XIV-B C No reasons were recorded while issuing the notice under Section 158BD 3. The above legal ground goes to the very root of the matter, so to appreciate the same necessary facts are required to be narrated. The assessee-HUF derives income from interest and is assessed to tax since the asst. yr. 1995-96. The Karta of HUF carried on business of gold and silver as a sole proprietor of M/s Ramesh Chand Prem Raj, in the status of individual. On 15th July, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)108ITD48(Jodh.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee for A.Y.2002-03, which is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Udaipur dated 20.12.2004.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-company filed its return declaring "Nil" income for A.Y.2002-03, on 23.10.2002, after claiming depreciation of Rs. 9,93,17,254/-. This return was processed on 28.2.2003 Under Section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee-company has shown total income at Rs. 2,06,09,595/- on the basis of book profit calculated Under Section 115JB of the Act.The assessee also paid a tax of Rs. 15,76,634/-, as a MAT. For the purpose of computing income Under Section 115JB, the assessee-company has claimed deduction Under Section 80HHC at Rs. 1,11,01,306/- out of the book profit on the basis of a decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of GTN Textile v. CIT reported in 164 CR 185 [Kerala]; and Clause (iv) of explanation given Under Section 115JB which according to the assessee-company, entitled it to r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Jodh.)609
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 23rd March, 2005 confirming the penalty of Rs. 36,585 imposed by the AO under Section 271B of the Act in relation to asst.yr. 1999-2000.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the assessee, an individual, carried out business of manufacturing and sale of its produce in the shape of Chuna (Lime) and Kilns. In this year, two lime Kilns one at Town Gotan, Dist. Nagaur and another at village Borunda, Dist. Jodhpur were run by the assessee in the name and style of M/s United Chemicals Products and M/s Ajij Lime & Plaster Industries. Books of account of both the concerns were maintained separately. The turnover of the first concern was at Rs. 45,62,002 and of the second concern at Rs. 27,55,023 totalling Rs. 73,17,025. The AO observed that the accounts of the second concern were not audited. On being called upon to explain the reasons it was stated that the assessee being an illiterate person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Jodh.)907
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 17th March, 2005. This appeal arises out of a penalty order passed under Section 271B of the Act on 14th Sept., 2004.2. The facts of this issue are that the assessee is medical practitioner and is also a proprietor of Surana Clinic and Diagnostic Centre. He showed receipts of Rs. 70,492 from patients treated by him by way of fees; Rs. 4,88,221 from pathological laboratory; and Rs. 8,60,832 from sales of medicines, totalling to Rs. 14,19,596. The assessee did not get his accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Act. The reasons for not getting his accounts audited are stated to be that his gross receipts from the profession are below Rs. 10,00,000 and from his business receipts are below Rs. 40,00,000. As per Section 44AB, the accounts are to be got audited if professional receipts are at Rs. 10,00,000 or above and if business receipts are at Rs. 40,00,000 or above. The AO took total receipts to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Jodh.)247
1. These appeals of the different assessees are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(A) dt. 20th April, 2006 pertaining to asst.yr. 1994-95. These two appeals can be disposed of simultaneously because the points involved therein are exactly identical. The relevant facts common to both these appeals are that the appellant's lands were acquired by the defence authority. The main grievances of the appellants is against the finding of the learned CIT(A) about non-maintainability of appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 264/144 of the Act on 24th Jan., 2001. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessees' lands were acquired by the defence authority on 29th Sept., 1989 under Section 4 of the Central Acquisition Act, 1894. The possession of the land was taken between 8th April, 1991 to 16th April, 1991. The compensation of the land was awarded on 23rd Jan., 1992. The payments of the compensation were started in the year 1991 and were completed by ...
Tag this Judgment!