Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2003)87ITD98(Rajkot.)
1. These are three appeals by three different assessees for assessment year 1992-93. They are directed against the respective orders of the Id. CIT dated 25-3-1999 passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). As a common issue is involved in all the three appeals, they are being disposed of together by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The common grievance of all the three assessees is that the order passed under Section 263 is bad in law.2. The three assessees are brothers. They had filed their returns of income for the year under consideration at Rajkot on 26-3-1993 disclosing total income of Rs. 23,250, Rs. 23,100 and Rs. 22,895 respectively showing income from interest. The returns were processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, in financial year 1995-96, it came to light that one Shri G.L. Shah, Manager, Bank of Baroda, Sangli Branch, had issued false authentications under Foreign Exchange (Immunity) Scheme, certifying the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2004)86TTJ(Rajkot.)783
The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT dated 27-3-2001 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the first ground, assessee has challenged the validity of jurisdiction invoked under section 263 of the Act. No serious arguments were advanced on this ground and hence the said ground is rejected. In the next ground, the assessee is aggrieved against the direction of the CIT to treat the seized cash of Rs. 20 lacs as unexplained and to subject it to tax.First the facts. On 29-1-1998, the assessee was intercepted at Santacruz airport and was searched under section 132 by virtue of a duly authorized warrant. The assessee was found to be in possession of cash worth Rs. 20 lacs which was seized. Notice under section 158BC was issued to the assessee in response to which he filed his return for the block period from 1-4-1987 to 29-1-1998, showing undisclosed income at Nil. However, he did show the income earne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2004)91TTJ(Rajkot.)360
Both these appeals by the department are directed against two separate orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 24-4-1995 and 25-4-1995, for assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, respectively.Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of together by this combined order for the sake of convenience.The first common ground in both the appeals is against the deletion of additions of Rs. 50,73,698 and Rs. 8,47,118 made on account of ad hoc payments received from Sardar Sarovar Nigam for extra efforts of excavation work. The second common ground is against holding that apportionment of ad hoc payment was incorrect. The third common ground is against holding that the disputed amount recoverable in excess of the amount fixed cannot be treated as income. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the facts pertaining to assessment year 1992-93.The assessee is a contracting firm specializing in earth work. For the year under consideration, assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2003)80TTJ(Rajkot.)668
1.The present four appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 6th Feb., 2002, vide which learned CIT(A) decided four appeals of the assessee pertaining to asst. yrs.1997-98 and 1998-99.2. In response to the notice of hearing, the assessee has submitted certain submissions. However, no one has come forward for arguing the matter. We heard the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue and gone through the written submissions of the assessee.3. The brief facts of the case are that four appeals were filed before the learned CIT(A) against the orders of the learned AO dt. 29th June, 1999, 16th Sept., 1998, 11th Sept., 1998, and 18th Sept., 1998.Aggrieved with the action taken under Section 201(1A), r/w Sections 200 and 194-I of the IT Act, vide which the learned ITO, TDS, levied an interest of Rs. 1,10,23,030 for the financial yrs. 1997-98 and 1996-97.All these appeals were filed before the first appellate authority on 31st Aug., 1999. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2003)86ITD497(Rajkot.)
1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 6th June, 2000, for asst, yr. 1995-96. First ground in the appeal is against the addition of Rs. 42,54,767 and against the conclusion that Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), was applicable to the assessee's case.2. The assessee-firm is engaged in the business of ship breaking at Alatg Port. During the year under consideration, assessee had purchased two ships for breaking purposes--one from M/s Electra Maritime (Jersey) Ltd. London, at a price of US & 9,01,252.98 and the other from M/s Neter Navigator, Singapore, at a price of US & 30,69,416.5. The purchase price and other terms of purchase were as per the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into between the assessee and the respective sellers. In the course of assessment proceedings it was observed that as per MOA, assessee was making interest payments to non-resident parties on account of credit facility availed by it for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2002)76TTJ(Rajkot.)169
The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 6-6-2000, for assessment year 1995-96.First ground in the appeal is against the addition of Rs. 42,54,767 and against the conclusion that section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was applicable to the assessee's case.The assessee-firm is engaged in the business of ship breaking at Alatg Port. During the year under consideration, assessee had purchased two ships for breaking purposes-one from M/s Electra Maritime (Jersey) Ltd., London, at a price of US $ 9,01,252.98 and the other from M/s Neter Navigator, Singapore, at a price of US $ 30,69,416.5. The purchase price and other terms of purchase were as per the Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the MOA) entered into between the assessee and the respective sellers. In the course of assessment proceedings it was observed that as per MOA, assessee was making interest payments to non...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2004)88TTJ(Rajkot.)379
Both these appeals by the department are directed against the combined order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 5-11-1999, for assessment year 1996-97. As a common issue is involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of together, by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Earlier, the department had filed a combined appeal for both the assessees. The Registry of the Tribunal had issued a defect memo stating that separate appeals have to be filed in respect of different assessees. In response to the defect memo the revenue has later filed a separate appeal in the case of Kapoorchand Bansal. Hence, the said appeal is time-barred by 302 days. A petition dated 12-10-2001, has been filed for condoning the delay and explaining the reasons as mentioned above for the delay. Since it is a procedural lapse on the part of the department, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing. In both the appeals the revenue is aggrieved against holding th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2004)91TTJ(Rajkot.)778
These cross-appeals are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 3-8-1999, for assessment year 1995-96. As the issues involved are inter- connected, both the appeals are being disposed of by this combined order for the sake of convenience, In assessee's appeal, first ground is against the addition of Rs. 39,83,240 made on account of alleged undervaluation of closing stock.In the departmental appeal, the revenue is aggrieved against the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the assessing officer to verify the sale of 9,289 brass of stock upto 16-8-1995, and adopt the sale price as the correct market value of the stock by adopting 'first-in-first- out' method., The assessee-firm deals in coal ash. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessing officer observed that the GP rate in the current year was 23.93 per cent as compared to 38.50 per cent and 30.30 per cent in the preceding two years, respectively. In this connection it was explained by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
Reported in : (2001)72TTJ(Rajkot.)106
This appeal has been filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Rajkot, for assessment year 1990-91. The only ground of appeal filed by the department reads as follows : "The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 80-I on the total income not reduced by the deduction under section 80HHA. " During the course of hearing, the learned counsel of the assessee contended that the deduction should be allowed without reducing the profit by the deduction allowed under section 80HHA. The learned Departmental Representative, however, relied on the findings of the assessing officer.After hearing both the parties, we find force in the arguments of the learned authorized representative of the assessee. The various Tribunal Benches have held that the deduction under sections 80HHA (sic) and 80-I should be allowed on the gross profits and not on the net profits computed after deductin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(Appeals)-I, Rajkot, dated 22-1-1993 for assessment year 1984-85. The various grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as follows: "1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance under the provisions of Section 37(3A) to (3D) 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance under the provisions of Section 80HHC The appellant submits that the confirmation of the disallowance under Section 80HHC is not justified.' 2. The assessee is a Public Ltd. Company engaged in the manufacture of drilling machines and other machineries. In this case, the regular assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 29-2-1988 on a total income of Rs.10,61,140. The CIT(A), Rajkot vide his order dated 26-9-1988 set aside the assessment on the point to examine the element of sales-promotion expenses involved in the sales commission paid by the assessee to its sole-selling agents. However, the CIT, Rajkot vide his order under Section 263 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!