Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ranchi
1. This appeal preferred by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4-7-2006 for the block assessment period 1991-92 to 2000-01 on the following grounds: (1) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi has erred in cancelling the order made by the assessing officer 27-10-2004. (2) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,50,000 on account of undisclosed income invested in purchase of KVPs worth Rs. 37,50,000. (3) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,50,000 on account of undisclosed interest earned on KVPs during the assessment year 2001-02. (4) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi erred in quashing the order in the individual status ignoring the fact that notice under Section 158BC/BD was issued in the name of the assessee in individual capacity and not in HUF capacity, but no retur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2007)106TTJRanchi422
1. This appeal is by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A), Ranchi dt. 8th Oct., 2004 for the block assessment period 1996-97 to 2001-02 and 1st April, 2001 to 6th Feb., 2002. 1. For that the learned CIT(A), Ranchi has erred in deleting additions of Rs. 67,01,380 and Rs. 77,02,747 made on account of notings in the seized documents PKC-60 found and seized during the search in the case of the assessee showing outstanding debts regarding amounts receivable from the various parties. The learned CIT(A) has not appreciated that in view of the provisions of Sub-section 4A of Section 132 and Clause (b) of Section 158B the onus is on the assessee to disprove the contents of the documents seized from assessee's possession. 2. For that the learned CIT(A), Ranchi has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 1,06,90,852 in respect of outstanding debtors found recorded in the seized documents PKS-1 to 126 in respect of Maa Durga Service Station, a proprietorship concern of Smt. Kanchan Khullar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2007)108ITD506Ranchi
1. These thirteen appeals are by the two assessees against the same orders of the Id. CIT (A), Ranchi dated 18.9.2002 & 19.9.2002 for I.T.A No. 445-450/P/2002 and dated 30.9.2002, 19.9.2002 & 17.9.2002 respectively for I.T.A No. 451-457/P/2002 for the Assessment Years 1986-87, 1989-90 to 1993-94 & 1995-96.2. In these cases both the assessees are advocates practising mainly in land acquisition matter. The department has assessed the assessees' professional income in some of the years by adopting certain percentage of additional/enhanced compensation. In some of the years, the department has treated the entire additional/enhanced compensation as income of the assessees after giving benefit of outgoing viz. payment to awardees, expenditure incurred on litigation. Further, interest on the additional/enhanced compensation has been assessed as income of the assessees. The addition made by the A.O. by adopting certain percentage of additional/enhanced compensation as professional...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2005)97TTJRanchi808
1. These three appeals-three by different assessees and three by the Department-raise common grounds of appeal. They are, therefore, disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The grounds raised by both the assessees and the Department are detailed hereinafter. "(a) Sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,88,710 against the addition of Rs. 6,13,565 made by the AO on account of brokerage earned, (b) The addition made by the AO is neither corroborated by any seizure of assets nor valuable assets during the course of search conducted under Section 132". "(a) Aggrieved by the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) on account of brokerage income. (b) Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained investment in house property".5. Both the parties were heard regarding the issues raised by them and their legal implications.6. On careful consideration of the material made available to the Tribunal and analyzing the same in the light of the submissions made by both the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2005)93TTJRanchi252
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee for the asst. yr.2001-02.2. First ground of appeal is regarding the treatment of Rs. 2,31,026 as business income instead of capital gains as claimed by the assessee.3. While framing the assessment under Section 143(3), it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had purchased 63 kathas of land by sale deed dt. 26th Sept., 1988. Again, 94 kathas of land were purchased in the financial year 1989-90. The purchase of the lands was disclosed under the VDIS, 1997. The assessee sold the lands by making plots in the financial years 1997-98 to 2000-01. About 22 kathas of land were sold at Rs. 2,47,500. The assessee claimed capital gains in respect of profit arising out of transfer of the land. However, the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that the transaction is adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, the profit was treated as business income. The following reasons were recorded by the AO in his order: "(i) Initially, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2005)92TTJRanchi101
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1998-99 by which penalty under Section 271B was confirmed.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee has been manufacturing and selling liquor. During this year the assessee sold liquor of Rs. 28,16,840. According to the AO the provisions of Section 44AF are attracted in the case of the assessee because the assessee is a retail trader of liquor. Since the assessee had disclosed net profit less than 5 per cent, therefore, under Sub-section (5) of Section 44AF the assessee was required to get the accounts audited and such audit report under Section 44AB was to be furnished within the stipulated time.Since the assessee failed to get the accounts audited, hence penalty under Section 271B of Rs. 14,084 was imposed.4. Mr. Modi, the learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that the assessee is a manufacturer and seller of liquor. The provisions of Section 44AF are applicable in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!