|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 185 Records
-
2006 (3) TMI 300 - ITAT PUNE-A
Minimum Alternate Tax ... ... ... ... ..... be levied on taxes payable on the deemed income under section l15JE. Your appellant further submits that the Karnataka High Court in the case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. v. CIT 2000 243 ITR 519 had held that no interest under the said sections could be levied were tax was payable on book profit and in any case it had paid taxes as per the provisions of Income-tax Act. (c) Your honour appellant prays that the said interest be deleted. This ground is dismissed as withdrawn. It may be added at this juncture that provisions of section l15lB provide that all other provisions of this Act apply save as otherwise provided in this section. Therefore, provisions of section 234B and section 234C are applicable and thus, there was no merit in the case of the assessee that interest under these sections cannot be charged on the liability under section 115JB. (6) Ground No.6, being residuary in nature does not require any decision from us. 7. In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 299 - ITAT PUNE-A
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... f a genuine expenditure incurred on the employees and merely because of relationship, it should not have been disallowed if proved to be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. In this case, the admitted position is that her education abroad was directly going to improve the business of the assessee and in fact, after her return, she had joined the company. Contrary to this, in this appeal, the son of the assessee was not working in the medical establishment of the assessee and he was simply a student at that time. Hence, the expenditure incurred on the education of son was nothing, but personal expense of the assessee not entitled for claim under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. 8. In view, of the foregoing discussion as well as on careful analysis of several precedents, discussed in the light of the facts of this case, we hereby confirm the findings of the authorities below and dismiss this ground of the assessee. 9. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 298 - ITAT PUNE-A
... ...
... ... ..... o choose between the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court and Hon ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court is binding nature in view of constitutional provisions. Therefore, with due respect to the decision of Hon ble Mumbai Bench, we choose to follow the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is decided that the gross total income has to be worked out for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC. Thereafter, provisions of section 80HHC are to be applied to find out the amount to be deducted so however that the amount to be deducted does not exceed the gross total income. In this view of the matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned counsel of the assessee that brought forward losses from non-export business should be ignored for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. to 8. These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues .
-
2006 (3) TMI 290 - ITAT PUNE-B
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... appeal are decided as under - (i) Ground No.1 is treated as dismissed and it is held that capital gains amounted to short-term capital gains, taxable in the assessment year 1999-2000 (ii) Ground No.2 is treated as allowed and the Assessing Officer shall allow deduction of the payment of stamp duty of Rs. 69,010 in the year of taxation after verification of the fact that it was paid by the assessee in respect of agreement dated 16-11-1990 (iii) Ground No.3, which is without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, is allowed and it is held that the entire capital gains is assessable in assessment year 1999-2000 and (iv) Ground No.4 is allowed to the extent that no interest is chargeable in the proceedings of this year, but the Assessing Officer may consider the chargeability of interest under section 234B while assessing short-term capital gains in the proceedings of assessment year 1999-2000. 6. In result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above.
-
2006 (3) TMI 288 - ITAT RAJKOT
Appealable Orders ... ... ... ... ..... ement of any lack of bona fides on the part of assessee in furnishing the return after receipt of seized material. Under these circumstances it shocks the very conscience if interest is being levied under section 158BFA(1) which is essentially penal in nature, for no fault of the assessee. We are therefore inclined to set aside the conclusions of lower authorities and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with specific direction to verify the facts as to when the assessee was provided xerox copies of seized materials and copies of statement recorded, and he is further directed not to levy any interest until the xerox copies of all these materials as requested by the assessee were made available to him and thereafter certain reasonable time has to be considered to enable the assessee to scrutinize the xerox copies and to file the block return. We direct accordingly. 11. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed with the direction given hereinabove.
-
2006 (3) TMI 287 - ITAT RAJKOT
Income derived from exports - Whether section 80HHC deduction is to be allowed without excluding the deductions allowed under sections 80-I and 80G of the Act - HELD THAT:- The "profits of the business" which is the starting point for computing deduction under sub-section (3) of section 80HHC is defined in Explanation (baa) below sub-section (4C).
Nowhere in these provisions is there any mention that while computing the deduction u/s 80HHC, the profit is to be reduced by deductions under sections 80-I and 80G which are allowed to the assessee. Therefore, the contention of the learned DR that a substantial question of law or a question of law arises has no merits.
Even on merits, the assessee's case has merits and was rightly allowed by the CIT(A) as aforesaid. Thus, the appeal is to be rejected.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 284 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... he issue afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 38. The next ground of appeal is regarding expenditure incurred by the assessee for right issues. This issue arises for consideration in the assessee s appeal in I.T.A. No. 1406(Mds)/99 for the assessment year 1995-96. We heard the learned D.R. and the learned representative for the assessee. We find that his issue is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT 1997 225 ITR 798. In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, we confirm the same. 39. In the result, I.T.A. Nos. 1068(Mds)/98, 1542(Mds.)/99, 766, 767(Mds)/2000, 1052(Mds)/2000, 1406(Mds)/99, 681 (Mds.)/2003 and 631 (Mds.)/2000 are partly allowed. I.T.A. Nos. 844, 845 and 846(Mds.)/2003 are dismissed. I.T.A. No. 806(Mds.)/98 and 682(Mds.)/2003 are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2006 (3) TMI 283 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Minimum Alternate Tax ... ... ... ... ..... y domestic companies is nothing but an income-tax. Furthermore, sub-section (5) of section 115-0 clearly says that no deduction under any other provisions of Income-tax Act shall be allowed to a company or to a shareholder in respect of the amount which has been charged to tax under section 115-0(1) of the Income-tax Act. Furthermore, for the assessment year 1997-98, the CIT(A) disallowed similar claim of the assessee against which admittedly, no appeal was filed. In those factual circumstances, in our opinion, tax on distribution of profit or dividend by domestic companies is nothing but income-tax, therefore, it shall be added back to the book profit shown in the Profit and Loss Account. In view of the above discussion, we are unable to uphold the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2006 (3) TMI 280 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... and remains with assessee. The REC had first charge on monies forming part of Special Fund . It means that after meeting the liabilities of the REC any money is left, the assessee can utilise the same for the purpose of other liabilities. This proves that the assessee was owner of bonds issued by REC and Ld. CIT(A) had rightly come to the conclusion. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). 30. The issue relating to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) does not arise out of order of Ld. CIT(A) and requires no discussion. Hence, the same is dismissed. 31. In the result the Revenue s appeals in ITA Nos. 1623/Mds./1999, 1624/Mds./1999, 6/Mds./1999, 7/Mds./1999 for assessment years 1992-93,1993-94,1994-95,1995-96 are partly allowed and in ITA No. 1279/Mds./2000 for assessment year 1997-98 is dismissed. Assessee s appeals in ITA Nos. 1565/Mds./1999, 1566/ Mds./1999 and 1259/Mds./2000 for assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1997-98 are dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 278 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Prima Facie Adjustment ... ... ... ... ..... rds public issue of shares is to be treated as capital expenditure. I, therefore, concur with the decision of the learned Judicial Member. 11. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for deciding the appeal in accordance with majority. ORDER Per N. Vijayakumaran, Judicial Member. - Since there was difference of opinion among the Members who originally heard the above appeals, the Hon ble President has framed the point of difference as under for being dealt with by the Third Member Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal of the Revenue is required to be allowed in part as held by the ld. Sr. Vice-President or is to be fully allowed, as held by the ld. Judicial Member? The Hon ble Third Member, for the reasons stated in his order dated 16th March, 2006 has concurred with the view expressed by the Judicial Member that the appeal of the Revenue is to be fully allowed. 2. In view of the majority opinion, the appeal by the Revenue, is allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 275 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Accrual Of income - interest income on non-performing asset (NPA) - mercantile system of accounting - non-banking finance company - whether RBI guidelines would override income-tax provisions or not - Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - written off as bad debts - depreciation deemed to have been allowed in the years in which income was computed u/s 115J - Expenditure for purchase of software - MAT - Claims for provision of NPAs.
HELD THAT:- As per RBI Act, the income on NPAs is not to be credited to P&L a/c. In case of an asset if interest is not received for six months it is to be treated as NPA. The assessee had not credited income to P&L a/c following RBI guidelines. As we have already held that RBI guidelines are for the purpose of supervision, management and control of monetary and credit system it would not stop accrual of income u/s 5 of the IT Act. If RBI guidelines were to stop the accrual of income u/s 5 of the Act, it would have mentioned so. Thus, RBI guidelines dt. 13th June, 1994 or issued subsequently u/s 45JA cannot override IT Act which is a Special Act and RBI is General Act in relation to IT Act.
The income of such assessees was determined as per Circular dt. 9th Oct., 1984. Because of this reason s. 43D was inserted in the statute. RBI guidelines in case of NBFC are for the purpose of control and supervision with respect to public interest and viability of the NBFC. The guidelines never intended for taking the interest income accrued as per s. 5 of the Act out of the scope of IT Act. If the contention of assessee is accepted, it would amount to insertion of 'NBFC' in s. 43D of the Act, that too by a guideline issued for different purposes by an authority other than Parliament. In other words the doctrine of "casus omissus" will deem to have been applied which is contrary to law of land as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative. Thus, it is clear that RBI guidelines alone are not sufficient for recognition of income on cash basis for the purpose of income-tax. There has to be a provision similar to s. 43D in case of NBFCs also.
Thus, it is clear that the IT Act, 1961 is a Special Act. RBI guidelines have been issued under delegated legislation for the purpose of effective supervision and control of monetary and credit system. The RBI guidelines have not been issued to override the mandatory provisions of s. 145 of the Act. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. T.N. Power Finance & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.[2005 (10) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , wherein it has been held that RBI guidelines cannot override the mandatory provisions of s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. In view of above discussions and the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court, it is held that RBI guidelines will not override the mandatory provisions of s. 145 of the Act. Since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, the interest income on NPAs will be assessed to tax on accrual basis.
The alternative argument of ld AR of the assessee is that if the contention of the assessee for recognition of income on receipt basis is not accepted, the amount of interest should be treated to have been written off. We are unable to accept this plea on the ground that for claiming deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) the assessee has to actually write off a bad debt in the books of account, in view of decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Micromax Systems (P) Ltd.[2005 (7) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
Depreciation deemed to have been allowed in the years in which income was computed u/s 115J of the Act - We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [2002 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that even where the book profit liability is imposed, the amounts of business loss, unabsorbed depreciation, investment allowance etc., at the beginning of the accounting year are to be adjusted and set-off to the same extent of such brought forward losses, unabsorbed depreciation, etc., as they would have been adjusted or set-off had the assessee been assessed to tax in the regular way in accordance with provisions of ss. 28 to 43 of the Act, and only the resultant amount of loss, unabsorbed depreciation, etc., can be carried forward to the next year. The Supreme Court further observed that all that s. 115J(2) does is to preserve the right to carry forward the balance of the unabsorbed loss and unabsorbed depreciation in the relevant previous year to next year. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of Revenue. Accordingly the order passed by learned CIT(A) is upheld on this issue.
Expenditure for purchase of software - In this case the assessee has leased out computer along with software. The life of software is not short as held in the case of Arawali Constructions Co. (P) Ltd., Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Company Law Institute. Therefore, the software purchased will be capital in nature. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by authorities below.
MAT - We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Nagarjuna Investment Trust Ltd.[1997 (4) TMI 115 - ITAT HYDERABAD] wherein it has been held that SOD is appropriate method to determine income of hire purchase transactions. Respectfully following the order of Tribunal. Hyderabad Bench it is held that the issue is covered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by authorities below.
Claims for provision of NPAs - We find that in the case of T.N. Power Finance & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT [2005 (10) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that merely because the RBI had directed the assessee to provide for non-performing assets, that direction could not override the mandatory provisions of the IT Act contained in s. 36(1)(viia), which stipulate a deduction not exceeding 5 per cent of total income only in respect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts, which are predominantly revenue in nature or trade related and not for provision for non-performing assets, which are of predominantly capital nature. Respectfully following the decision of jurisdictional High Court, it is held that provision made for bad and doubtful debts following the guidelines issued by RBI in respect of NPAs will not be allowable as deduction.
In the result assessee's appeal is dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 274 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... Prabhakar and Sri Ravindran Prabhakar. In view of the above facts, the learned Departmental Representative fairly relied on the order of the AO and the grounds of appeal raised before us. It is seen from the above facts that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to assess 1/3rd share from rental income arising out of the house property which were originally belonging to late Smt. Kanthi Prabhakar and late Smt. Padmavathy Ammal substantively in the hands of the assessee and not on protective basis. The CIT(A) has rightly held that this income. is to be assessed at only one place, i.e., 1/3rd each in the hands of Sri A.Y. Prabhakar, Shri Raghunandan Prabhakar and Sri Ravindran Prabhakar. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 33. In the result, ITA Nos. 2458 to 2463/Mad/2006 are allowed, ITA Nos. 2380, 2381 and 2384/Mad/2005 are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No. 201/Mad/2006 is dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 272 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... usive and avoid his presence and could not be located. He had cheated me by false promises and pure intention of grabbing huge money from me. Today I happened to locate him and lodging this complaint. 39. It is seen from the above FIR that the dispute is only regarding purchase of flat and not regarding the payments of contract. The assessee could not prove his claim by any evidence that the Court cases are pending on account of this payment which is an outstanding liability. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we fairly feel that, these payments received by the assessee shown as outstanding on account of completion of contract, are contract receipts assessable to tax. Accordingly, the AO has rightly treated this as income and the same has rightly been confirmed by learned CIT(A) Accordingly, this issue of the appeal is dismissed. 40. In the result, the first issue of the assessee s appeal is partly allowed and the second issue of the assossee s appeal is dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 263 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... anent nature. It gives an enduring benefit to the assessee. As such it should be capitalized and be considered for depreciation claim. I agree with the ld. Judicial Member on this aspect also. 15. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for deciding the appeal in accordance with the majority. ORDER Per N. Vijayakumaran, Judicial Member. - Since there was difference of opinion among the Members who originally heard the above appeals, the Hon ble President has framed the point of difference as under for being dealt with by the Third Member Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) on pre-operative expenses and interest is to be confirmed or the appeal of the assessee is to be allowed? The Hon ble Third Member has concurred with the view expressed by the Judicial Member that the orders of the revenue authorities are perfectly justified. 2. In view of the majority opinion, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 262 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Payment towards contribution to Provident Fund before the due date - Whether amendment in proviso to section 43B by Finance Act, 2003 could be construed to be curative, as such retrospective in nature? - HELD THAT:- As per the prescription of section 43B of the Act, deduction for statutory payments pertaining to labour, taxes etc. are to be allowed as deductions, if they are actually paid during the financial year. However, to mitigate the unintended hardship it is stipulated in the proviso that taxes are deemed to have been paid during the B financial year even if they are paid by the due date of filing of return. In the case of statutory payment relating to labour, it was sine qua non to make the payment anytime before the last date for payment of labour-related liability. It was represented before the Government that the delayed payment of statutory liability related to labour should be accorded the same treatment as delayed payment of taxes etc. The deduction if denied in a year could not be claimed in subsequent year. On account of various reasons like postal delay, strikes or long holidays, the payment of employer's contributions to the respective authorities at times delayed even though the payment tendered before the due date.
Having regard to this unintended hardship, by the Finance Act, 2003 in the first proviso of section 43B, the words, brackets and letters referred to in clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (f) have been omitted and second proviso was also omitted. Legislature removed the differentiation between employee welfare payments and others. Uniform criteria was prescribed for the allowability of the claim. The amendment was made to eliminate unintended consequences that caused undue hardship to the taxpayers. Therefore, amendment in proviso to section 43B by Finance Act, 2003 was curative in nature. Accordingly, it should be applied retrospectively.
As regards the intervener, we have not examined the facts of the case. The regular Bench while deciding these appeals may keep in view the principles laid down in this case. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 258 - ITAT LUCKNOW-B
Mutual Concern ... ... ... ... ..... and participators as a class must be able to participate in the surplus. It is immaterial whether the surplus is paid back to the members in cash or is put to reserve with the club for its development and for providing better amenities to its members. This was so held in the decision in the case of Nataraj Finance Corpn. 9. In view of aforementioned discussion, we hold that the income earned by the assessee was. exempt on the concept of mutuality for assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 and earned upto 2-10-1997 in assessment year 1998-99. The income from 3-10-1997 to 31-3-1998 was exempt under section 80P(2)(d) as per which the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80P if the income is earned by way of interest or dividend from its investment with any other co-operative society then the whole of such income will be eligible for deduction. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed for all the three assessment years. 10. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 256 - ITAT JODHPUR
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... vind Kumar (HUF) in ITA No. 142/Jd/2001 for asst. yr. 1994-95, wherein after relying on various decisions, which are reproduced hereinbelow, the Tribunal gave the finding that has come to the conclusion that on the basis of DVO s report reassessment cannot be done because this report does not constitute a requisite information as envisaged in s. 147 of the Act. (i) Brig. B. Lall vs. WTO (1980) 15 CTR (Ra ) 180 (1981) 127 ITR 308 (Raj) (ii) CIT vs. Smt. Gunar Marfatia (1986) 159 ITR 311 (Raj) (iii) Satyendra Chunder Ghose vs. WTO (1979) 12 CTR (Cal) 155 (1980) 126 ITR 102 (Cal) (iv) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 190 (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) (v) CIT vs. Smt. Prem Kumari Surana (1994) 206 ITR 715 (Raj) (vi) Tara Chand Mundhra vs. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 163 CTR (Raj) 631 (2000) 245 ITR 187 (Raj). 9. Therefore, on both the counts the appeal of the Department stands dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 255 - ITAT JODHPUR
Validity of revisionary order passed u/s 263 - Erroneous And Prejudicial Order - HELD THAT:- The words 'prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue', have not been defined but legally it is well settled that they only mean that order should not have been passed in accordance with the provisions of law, in consequence thereof the lawful revenue, due to the state, has not been realised or cannot be realised. Likewise, the expression "erroneous" has not been defined in the Act. But its plain meaning is that the term 'erroneous' involves error or deviation from law. Therefore, an assessment order made by complying the provision of law cannot be branded as erroneous by the CIT simply because according to him the same should have been passed or framed in a different manner.
The assessee was purchasing goods on behalf of the parties and also sending goods to them after purchasing from his own account. The transaction of sale and purchase of wheat from M/s Vijay Trading from assessees own wheat account and appears in the copy of arath account of 1983-84. The assessee had purchased 110 bales of cotton for Rs. 7,12,280 from Oriental Cotton Traders, for and on behalf of the arathies and the same did not appear in the trading account of the assessee. The assessee had also filed datewise copies of arath account, which revealed datewise receipt of arath. The observation of the CIT that the assessee received arath of Rs. 6,90,738 while net income is Rs. 1,31,085 which was neither reflected in the audit report nor was enquired into by the AO, is not correct. The audit report contained P&L ale, copy of which is placed at p. 24 of the paper book and it shows total receipt of Rs. 9,30,58 (sic) from arath and GP in dealing in these commodities. Against this gross income, the assessee had shown the debit of Rs. 4,80,000 towards interest and Rs. 3,18,489 towards expenses like salary, telephone expenses, vehicle expenses and depreciation etc. Therefore, P&L a/c shows the net income of Rs. 1,31,085. The audit report contained all these details duly examined by the AO and, therefore, did not find any discrepancy therein.
Thus, we come to conclusion that the ground taken by the learned CIT for revising the assessment order are not erroneous insofar as these are prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the result, we quash the revisionary order passed u/s 263.
-
2006 (3) TMI 253 - ITAT JODHPUR
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... f appeal. 18. It seems that the learned CIT(A) has set aside the addition in respect to the above two parties, whose confirmations were not received by the AO. The learned CIT(A) has directed the AO to send intimations/details to the concerned AOs of these two concerns for getting the receipts verified and for taking necessary action, if warranted. In a way this order amounts to restoration of these additions for further verification and necessary action. The deletion for the time being is only setting aside of these additions. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the above findings of the learned CIT(A). Thus, ground No. (2) is also dismissed. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed, as ground No. (3) has already been decided along with the appeal of the assessee, and other grounds are formal in nature. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2006 (3) TMI 250 - ITAT JODHPUR
Block Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... Sunita Devi Agarwal, ITA No. 201/Jd/2003 and C.O. No. 41/Jd/2003 17. First ground in the Revenue s appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,74,500 made on account of alleged gifts received from Kalika family and others. 18. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of this ground are similar to that of ground No.4 in the appeal of Raj Kumar Agarwal. Following the view taken above, we uphold the impugned order on this score. 19. First ground of the cross-objection was not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative. The same is, hence, dismissed. Second effective ground is against the levy of surcharge. 20. Here also, it is observed that search was carried on 21st Oct., 2000. The legal position discussed above would squarely apply to this ground also. Following the view taken above, we direct that surcharge is not leviable. 21. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed.
........
|
