Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Nag.)559
1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), Raipur dt. 26th April, 2007 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 15,65,000 imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c).2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The assessee is an individual who is engaged in the business of courier service provider under the name and style of his proprietary concern M/s Pawan Courier. On 7th July, 2004, the Maharashtra Police intercepted Shri Kailash Jadhav, an employee of the assessee on Bombay Howrah Mall near Nagpur. Shri Jadhav was found in possession of cash amounting to Rs. 46,85,855 and since he could not offer any satisfactory explanation in respect of the said amount, the Maharashtra Police seized the said cash which was later on requisitioned by the Department under Section 132A. Subsequent to the seizure of the said cash from the employee of the assessee, a survey operation under Section 133A was carried out at the busin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2007)108ITD409(Nag.)
1. All these appeals by Revenue and cross-objections by assessee are directed against orders of learned CIT(A)-II, Nagpur, dt. 18th June, 2004 in an appeal against assessment order framed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act (the Act).2. All the assessees are relatives and partners in a firm M/s Arun Automobiles, having equal share therein. Original assessments were completed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Later on the AO found that the firm M/s Arun Automobiles is crediting the accounts of partners by way of interest and remuneration to the extent due to them based on mercantile system of accounting. However, when it comes to the hands of partners; the partners are offering the same only to the extent of amount withdrawn from such firm. It is the contention of the assessee partners that since they are following cash system of accounting, such interest income from firm is offered for taxation in the year of receipt and not in the year of credit to their accounts.The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
1. All these appeals by the assessee and the revenue, as well the cross objections by the assessee, for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1992-93, involving common issue, are disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience 2. Though the assessee has urged as many as 23 grounds, it is in fact confined to one i.e. against the order of the Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals) in directing the AO to redo the assessment against assessee's contention that the proceeding itself was bad in law and without jurisdiction. All these appeals, for the reasons recorded on 30.03.1995, were reopened and notice under Section 16 of the G. T. Act was issued to the assessee on the same date, requiring him to furnish the return of gift. In response to the notice, assessee filed the return on 13.06.1995, declaring gift chargeable to tax at Nil and along with that assessee also furnished a letter dated 27.05.1995 and a note, stating that the assessee was filing the return under protest, Asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2007)108TTJ(Nag.)627
1. All these appeals by the assessee and the Revenue, as well the cross-objections by the assessee, for the asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1992-93, involving common issue, are disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. Though the assessee has urged as many as 23 grounds, it is in fact confined to one i.e. against the order of the CGT(A) in directing the AO to redo the assessment against assessee's contention that the proceeding itself was bad in law and without jurisdiction. All these appeals, for the reasons recorded on 30th March, 1995, were reopened and notice under Section 16 of the GT Act was issued to the assessee on the same date, requiring him to furnish the return of gift. In response to the notice, assessee filed the return on 13th June, 1995, declaring gift chargeable to tax at nil and along with that assessee also furnished a letter dt. 27th May, 1995 and a note, stating that the assessee was filing the return under protest. Assessee also sought for vari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2006)100ITD455(Nag.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is for the assessment year 1996-97. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Id. CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 which according to the assessee is erroneous and liable to be cancelled. The assessee filed a return of income declaring income at Rs. 8,85,440/- on 24.12.1996. The assessee has taken contract for sale of liquor and was having two shops, i.e. Camp-I and Camp-II, Bhilai. The assessee has shown sale of country liquor of Masala variety at the rate of Rs. 86/- per litre and plain variety at the rate of Rs. 72/- per litre though-out the year. On verification of the figures shown by the assessee, a letter was written to the District Excise Officer, Durg for finding out the actual selling rate in the year under consideration. He informed the rates as under:Masala Rs. 73/- Rs. 49/- Rs. 25/-Plain Rs. 61/- Rs. 41/- Rs. 21/- Since there was a difference between the prices shown by the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Nag.)851
1. The assessee is in appeal agitating the action of the learned CIT(A) on the following grounds : That on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case having regard to the provisions of Interest-tax Act, 1974 : 1. The orders of the AO and GIT(A) are erroneous, bad in law, arbitrary, unjust, invalid, non-speaking and against the provisions of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 and quantum order and order under Section 17 should be cancelled/quashed. 2. The learned AO has erred in making an order under Section 17 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 for the asst. yr. 1998-99 and the learned CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the said order. That both the lower authorities ignored the detailed submissions available on record and as also filed in respective proceedings. 4. That apart, learned AO and CIT(A) failed to take notice of the fact that there was no application of the Interest-tax Act and the validity of the original assessment was disputed in appeal and hence order under Section 17 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2006)102ITD214(Nag.)
1. to 5. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues] 6. With respect to the second issue agitated by the Revenue, the learned Counsel submitted that no monitary limit has been assigned to claim pooja expenses which are invariably incurred in the business premises for the purpose of business. The details furnished by the assessee clearly indicate that the monthly Dakshina being salary given to the Poojari and expenses for Prasad etc. are incurred on various religious occasions which did not call for any disallowance insofar as the case laws relied upon by the learned CIT (Appeals) are squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. He fully supported the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue as well.7. On the next issue the learned Counsel submitted that the temple was under construction and was in the factory premises of the assessee which remains undisputed. Therefore, the very pooja which is being performed in the temple has been considere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Nag.)256
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), Bilaspur dt. 28th July, 2005 for the asst. yr. 2003-04 on the following effective grounds : (1) That the AO has erred in allowing exemption under Section 10(10C) at Rs. 1,40,679 instead of Rs. 5,00,000 which is unjustified. (2) That the AO has erred in not allowing the relief under Section 89(1) on account of VRS amount despite the fact VRS receivable has been taxed as salary income. (3) That the AO has erred in taxing the income on accrual/receivable basis i.e., income from VRS at Rs. 7,03,395 but not allowing the claim of exemption under Section 10(10C) at Rs. 5,00,000 which is arbitrary and unjustified.2. The facts, in brief, leading to the dispute are that the employer of the assessee has determined voluntary retirement benefit at Rs. 7,03,395 and out of it, a sum of Rs. 1,40,679, i.e., one-fifth of the VRS amount was received in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr.2003-04. The balance amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Nag.)167
1. The Revenue is in appeal agitating that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in annulling the assessment made by the AO under Section148 for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, they have prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) being erroneous both on law and facts be set aside and that of the AO be restored.2. None have appeared on behalf of the assessee-respondent. in spite of final opportunity having been granted on the earlier date of hearing.The counsel for the assessee has expressed his inability to appear being busy elsewhere. We have no alternative but to proceed with the disposal of this appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.3. The learned Departmental Representative brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee had never questioned the jurisdiction of the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. Section 124(3) of the IT Act makes it clear th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Nag.)832
1. By this miscellaneous applications filed under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks to recall the orders of the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals.2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the aforesaid miscellaneous applications are that the Revenue filed appeals in aforesaid cases having tax effect less than Rs. 1 lakh. The assessee raised a preliminary objection with regard to the admissibility of the appeals on the ground that since the tax effect in each case was less than Rs. 1 lakh, the appeals were filed in violation of the policy decision taken by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 1979, dt. 27th March, 2000, and same were liable to be dismissed as unadmitted. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as unadmitted because they were filed in violation of the aforesaid CBDT's Instructions.3. It is admitted by both the parties that in the present cases, the tax including interest is more than Rs. 1 lakh.4. At the time of hearing of these miscellaneous a...
Tag this Judgment!