Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)103TTJ(Jodh.)134
1. The appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee have been filed in relation to the order of the CIT(A), dt. 13th April, 2003 for asst. yr. 1998-99.2. The assessee is doing business of manufacturing of cooling appliances and also doing fabrication work in iron and steel in the factory named as M/s Utsav Industries of which he is a sole proprietor.In addition to the above, the assessee also does the work of a contractor under MES for making the supply of machinery in the name and style of his proprietorship concern of M/s New Brato Engineering Works.3. The first ground of appeal of the Revenue relates to deletion of a trading addition of Rs. 3,04,911.4. The assessee has shown gross sales of Rs. 66,34,020 in M/s Utsav Industries as against sales of Rs. 45,05,501 shown in the immediately preceding year. The GP has declined to 21.80 per cent from 22.40 per cent in the previous year. The small decline in the rate of profit was attributed to the increase in sales. The AO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Jodh.)896
1. These cross-appeals arise out of the first appellate order dt. 18th Dec, 2001, passed by the learned CIT(A), Ajmer, in relation to asst.yr. 1998-99.2. The assessee-company is engaged in the manufacturing/sales of synthetic cloth.3. The ground No. (1) of the assessee's appeal and ground No. (3) of the Department's appeal relate to the same issue, i.e., addition on account of foreign tour expenses. The relevant facts are that the AO made disallowance out of foreign tour expenses on the ground that these were either not fully supported by vouchers or were not incidental to the business of the assessee-company.4. The assessee-company showed sales of Rs. 11.13 crores in the previous year. In the earlier year, the receipts of the assessee were only from jobwork to the extent of Rs. 1.03 crores. An expenditure of Rs. 14.92 lakhs was incurred on foreign tour, by its agents and dealers, undertaken to South-East Asian countries, as a part of incentive schemes for sales/purchases.5. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Jodh.)97
1. These two cross-appeals-one by the assessee and Anr. by the Revenue in addition to the assessee's cross-objection emanate from the order passed by the CIT(A) on 10th April, 2001 in relation to the block period ending on 15th July, 1998 comprising of the asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1999-2000.2. First ground of the assessee's appeal is general containing summary of all the additions made and sustained, which have been specifically spelt out in further grounds.3. Ground No. 2 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 40.000 on account of unexplained cash. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was subjected to search action under Section 132(1) on 15th July, 1998. In the course of search, cash of Rs. 47,760 was found out of which a sum of Rs. 40,000 was seized. On being called upon to explain the source of the cash, it was stated by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings that he, in his preliminary statement recorded on the date of search viz. 15t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Jodh.)682
This is a bunch of three appeals, filed by the same assessee, namely M/s Rawatsar, K.V. Sahakan Samiti Ltd. against the common order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for three assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 1996-97 dated 22-9-2003. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these are being decided by a common order.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society duly registered with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, with Registration No. 1333 K dated 19-12-1967. In the computation of total income filed along with the return of income, the assessee- society has shown its gross total income at Rs. 11,19,762.44 in assessment year 1999-2000, and after claiming rebate under section 80P of the Act, the total income has been shown as "Rs. Nil". In the computation of income, the assessee had also claimed deduction for income earned from dealing in controlled commodities. According to the assessing officer, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)107TTJ(Jodh.)291
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 30th March, 2004 in relation to asst. yr. 1997-98.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee which runs a hospital, filed its original return of income on 28th Oct., 1997 declaring total income of Rs. 93,140. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 147/148 were initiated and the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 9,22,970. The AO made an addition of Rs. 8,29,729 under Section 69 of the Act, as unexplained investment.3. In the asst. yr. 1998-99, return was filed on 23rd Oct., 1998. From the return so filed it was found that the assessee had commenced the construction of new hospital building during the financial year 1995-96 and completed during the period relevant to asst. yr. 1998-99.Accordingly the case was selected for scrutiny and during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, the matter was referred to the Valuation Officer under Section 131(d) of the Act. The Valuation Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Jodh.)494
1. This appeal by the assessee has been filed against the order dt.21st Feb., 2005 of the CIT passed under Section 263.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Bhanwari Lal Mohan Lal filed return of income for the asst. yr. 2000-01 on 31st Oct., 2000, in the status of individual, showing total income of Rs. 1,88,879. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 2,39,383 under Section 143(3), on 28th March, 2003. From the perusal of the assessment order, the CIT formed an opinion that assessment order was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT heard the assessee for the proposed setting aside/revising order under Section 263. In the show-cause notice issued under Section 263, on 21st Feb., 2005, the CIT gave the following reasons for his proposed revision: (1) The details of purchase and sales effected on 10th March, 2003 were neither certified by the auditor in his audited report nor such trading account had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Jodh.)1101
1. These two appeals by different but connected assessees emanate from the orders passed by the CIT under Section 263 on 28th Nov., 2005 in relation to asst. yr. 2004-05. Since the both the appeals are based on identical facts, we are therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the return of income was furnished on 31st Oct., 2004 declaring an income of Rs. 1,56,308.The AO observed that the assessee, a transport contractor, had not properly maintained the books of account. It was further noted that in the year under consideration, the assessee had shown GP rate of 3.84 per cent on contract receipts of Rs. 2-01 crores as against preceding year's GP rate of 2.65 per cent and contract receipts of Rs. 3.01 crores, After rejecting the books of account, he applied 5 per cent GP rate to make an addition of Rs. 2,33,128. The CIT, vide show-cause notice dt. 13th July, 2005 observed that the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Jodh.)991
1. Those two appeals by the Revenue in relation to two different but connected assessees and cross-objections by the assessees arise out of the common order passed by the learned CIT(A) on 3rd March, 2003 in relation to block period 1st April, 1990 to 31st Oct., 2000. Since common issues are raised in all these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that search action was taken against the assessee on 31st Oct., 2000 during the course of which certain incriminating material/documents were found. A combined Panchnama was drawn [or the residence situated at C-39, Ambawadi, Jaipur, jointly occupied by Shri Tara Chand and Shri Raj Kuraar, the assessee in the instant case. In the bedroom of Smt. Archana, jewollory listed at pp. 1 and 2 of Annex. J was found having gross weight of 1009.120 gms. and 747.700 gins., as against net weight 897,00 gms. and 619.470 gms., respecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)284ITR1(Jodh.)
1. This appeal which pertains to asst. yr. 1989-90 has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dt. 2nd Feb., 1994. The assessee-appellant has taken various grounds of appeal. An additional ground of appeal has been raised by, the appellant.2. The brief facts of this case, giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee-appellant is a private limited company. The company filed returns of income declaring loss of Rs. 8,97,270 on 29th Dec, 1989. The company also filed audit accounts along with the returns. But later on the assessee-company filed revised return of income on 29th Jan., 1991 wherein loss of Rs. 24,28,490 was declared. This loss was increased as the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 15,31,220, which, was not claimed in the original return. But the assessee did not stop there and further filed a second revised return on 29th July, 1991 wherein loss of Rs. 20,68,810 was claimed. The appellant reduced this claim of investment allowance from Rs. 7,17,800 to Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)101ITD101(Jodh.)
1. This miscellaneous application has arisen out of the order dt. 28th May, 2001, for the asst. yr. 1995-96 in ITA. No. 177/Jdpr/1998.2. The appellant has moved an application under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 for amendment or direction and rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the record. The appellant has requested for amendment or direction issued in para 28 at p. 28 of the order for the asst. yr. 1995-96. Para 28 at p. 28 of the order reads as under: Before we part with this order, we may specify, for the sake of clarity that if the assessed income for any of the years involved in these appeals falls below the returned income after giving effect to this order, the AO is directed to restrict the same to the income returned by the assessee for the year.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed sales-tax deduction as separate deduction from the profit computed from the application of net profit rate. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim which was ...
Tag this Judgment!