Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 72 - AT - Income TaxIncome from cash deposits - CIT(A) treated as assessee’s business turnover in part and balance as income from other sources - Held that:- CIT (A) was justified in treating ₹ 20 lakhs of cash deposits as assessee’s business turnover since the assessee admitted income of ₹ 7,69,907/- is accepted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On a turnover of ₹ 20 lakhs, if ₹ 7,69,907/- is treated as net profit, it amounts to Net Profit ratio of 38.5% (7,69,907 x 100 ÷20,00,000) which is fairly acceptable. The Ld. Assessing Officer treatment of ₹ 10 lakhs turnover from the assessee’s waste cotton business would mean that the assessee’s Net Profit ratio is 77% (7,69,907 x 100 ÷10,00,000) which is totally illogical because such profit cannot be derived from cotton waste business. Therefore, we hereby confirm the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue Depreciation claim on windmill - CIT(A) granting 80% deposit on WDV method instead of 7.69% on straight line method in accordance with Section-32(1) Explanation-2 read with Rules 5 (1A) - Held that:- CIT (A) directed the Ld. Assessing Officer to grant depreciation to the assessee as claimed in his return of income filed on 25.05.2009 for the relevant assessment year by following the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.K.K.S.K. Leather Processes P Ltd. Vs. ITO (2009 (11) TMI 556 - ITAT MADRAS-D ) wherein it was held that option under Rule 5(1A) may be exercised in the income tax return filed within the due date and it is not necessary to file options separately, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) because the Ld. CIT (A) has only followed the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal. Therefore, we hereby confirm the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 250 against the cash deposit - CIT(A) deleted penalty - Held that:- In the assessment order the Assessing Officer could not bring any evidence on record to say that to cash deposits were from unexplained sources. It cannot be conclusively prove that the cash deposits were from undisclosed sources. It cannot be concluded as concealed income. In view of this the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty levied on cash deposits. - Decided against revenue
|