Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Rajkot.)286
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dated 8.2.06 for the AY 2002-03. Following three effective grounds have been taken by the assessee: That the ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in contending that trust is not entitled to the benefit of Section 11 on the expenditure of Rs. 4,81,221 so incurred by it on providing the earthquake relief. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in contending that the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act are applicable to the trust and consequently the trust is not entitled to the benefit of Section 11. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in contending that the first proviso to Section 13 is applicable to the appellant.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The assessee is a public charitable Trust duly registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and Under Section 16 of the I.T. Act. The Trust was incorporated on 11.8.1960, copy of certificate of incorporation was filed before the lower authorities. The retur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2006)8SOT429(Rajkot.)
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-1-2004 for the assessment year 2003-04."(i) Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in adopting the WDV as per books of calculation of depreciation instead of original cost of assets, which is WDV of assets as per Act for the facts and circumstances of the case.(ii) The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not treating Wharves, Quays, Pavements, Drain, Docks, Jetties, Fender Buoys, Navigational Aids Structures, etc., as Plant for the purpose of depreciation which are tools of trade and without which no port operations can be 40 carried out. For the facts and circumstances of the case, these assets are plant and so depreciation, as claimed for plant and machineris, needs to be allowed." Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee Kandla Port Trust is a Major Port under the Major Ports Trust Act, 1963. It is having status of Local Authority.The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2007)104ITD1(Rajkot.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), dt. 21st Jan., 2004 for the asst. yr, 2003-04. (i) Learned CIT(A) has erred in adopting the WDV as per books for calculation of depreciation instead of original cost of assets, which is WDV of assets as per Act for the facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) The CIT(A) has erred in not treating wharves, quays, pavements, drain, docks, jetties, fender buoys, navigational aids structures, etc., as plant for the purpose of depreciation which are tools of trade and without which no port operations can be carried out. For the facts and circumstances of the case, these assets are plant and so depreciation, as claimed for plant and machineries, needs to be allowed.3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee Kandla Port Trust is a Major Port under the Major Ports Trust Act, 1963. It is having status of local authority.The income of the Port Trust was exempted under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2006)103ITD66(Rajkot.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT-IV, Rajkot, dt. 9th July, 2004 for the block period 1st April, 1989 to 8th June, 1999 in the matter of order passed under Section 158BC of the IT Act.2. The following grounds of appeal have been taken by the assessee on the record: 1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the question of interest under Section 158BFA alone without any other part of the assessment order under Section 158BC under challenge is not appealable and thereby rejecting the appeal. It may please be directed to delete the interest charged under Section 158BFA as the inordinate delay in filing return of income was not attributable to the appellant.3. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and a partner in M/s Mayur Cotton Industries and also director of M/s Mayur Ginning & Pressing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2006)100ITD555(Rajkot.)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the Asst. Year 2001-02.2. The addition disputed in this appeal is Rs. 1,44,190/- Under Section 80HHC account of direction to allow the claim of the assessee Under Section 80HHC without excluding deduction allowed Under Section 80-I and 80-G of the Act. Though the appeal was filed by the Revenue on 21.6.2005 when the when the limit for filing the appeal was prescribed by the CBDT at Rs. 1 lac, the assessee's contention is that the said limit has been increased by the subsequent Circular of the Board dated 24^th October, 2005 and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained in view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Pithwa Engg.Works 276 ITR 519.3. The department has, however, contended that the new limit applies only to appeals filed after 30^th October, 2005 and the decision in the case of Pithwa Eng. Works (supra) has no application for the increased limit under the new ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Rajkot.)1106
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot, dt. 26th Aug., 2002 for asst. yr, 1998-99 in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3).2. The following ground of appeal has been taken by the Department on the record. The learned CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,87,069 being undisclosed stock.3. The rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of addition of Rs. 16,87,069, found in respect of difference in stock, as per the statements submitted to the bank vis-a-vis stock disclosed in the balance sheet as per the audited books of account. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee obtained cash credit facility from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajkot. Inguiry under Section 133(6) of the IT Act led to the finding that the stock disclosed to the bank for the purpose of hypothecation in order to obtain the cash credit facility was Rs. 19,1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Rajkot.)337
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-XIX, Ahmedabad, dt. 2nd Nov., 2004 for the asst. yr. 2001-02 in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. (i) Upholding the decision of the AO in respect of the addition made by treating agricultural income of Rs. 24,448 declared by the appellant as non-agricultural income from undisclosed sources, disregarding the submissions made by the appellant, (ii) Holding that the revised return of income under Section 139(5) cannot be a loss return, thus bearing the character of a return of income filed under Section 139(3). (iii) Holding that the transactions of purchase and sale of units of Kothari Pioneer Mutual Fund are in the nature of business transactions and not in the nature of investment in capital assets. (iv) In applying the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), even though the facts of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2006)99ITD399(Rajkot.)
These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-IT, Rajkot, dated 25-11-2004 for assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02.The only issue involved in these three appeals are whether the income from warehousing should be assessed as business income as returned by the assessee, or as income from housc property as assessed by the assessing officer. Since the main issue is identical in all these three appeals, they are disposed of by this consolidated order.The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147, the assessing officer observed that in the return of income, the assessee-firm has mentioned the nature of business as General Merchant and Warehousing charges and JCB Loader Hire Charges. He contended that income from warehouse is income from house property. According to him, it makes no difference whether the objective is to carry on business or get rental income. He has con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2006)282ITR224(Rajkot.)
1. These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) -II, Rajkot, dt. 25th Nov., 2004 for asst. yrs. 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02.2. The only issue involved in these three appeals is whether the income from warehousing should be assessed as business income as returned by the assessee, or as income from house property as assessed by the AO.Since the main issue is identical in all these three appeals, they are disposed of by this consolidated order, 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147, the AO observed that in the return of income, the assessee- firm has mentioned the nature of business as general merchant and warehousing charges and JCB Loader hire charges. He contended that income from warehouse is income from house property. According to him, it makes no difference whether the objective is to carry on business or get rental income. He has contended that there is no business like warehou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2006)100ITD265(Rajkot.)
1. These are the appeals filed by the Department and COs by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Rajkot, dated 30-8-2004 for the assessment year 1999-2000, and dated 31-8-04 for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1998-99, in the matter of orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3), read with Section 147.2. The following ground has been raised by the Department in the ITA No. 850/Rjt./04 for the assessment year 1999-2000: The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting Interest Income of Rs. 55,48,561 received from the State Government in respect of Land acquisition.3. The following common grounds of appeal has been raised by the Department in eight appeals (ITA Nos: 842 to 849/Rjt./04) for assessment years 1991-92 to 1998-99. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting Interest Income of Rs. 4,58,715 for each assessment years 1991-92 to 1998-99 which has accrued on delayed payment of compensation received from the State Government in resp...
Tag this Judgment!