Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udhyog on 4 September, 2003
12. It was further submitted that the state of affairs as regards
maintenance of accounts, valuation of WIP being the same as in earlier
years and the same having been accepted by the department, there is no
ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc.
Page 10 of 26
justification to tamper with the method of valuation of WIP. There is no
finding by the AO that the accounts of the assessee appear to be
unreasonable or excessive even with regard to expenses. The additions
are made merely on the basis of suspicion, which is not justified. The
assessee's representative further submitted, in any case, the profit rate
adopted by the AO @ 30% of sales is arbitrary and unscientific. There is
no comparable case given in any line of activity to support his estimation.
The assessee's representative also relied on the decisions of CIT v. Gotan
Lime Khanij Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj) and CIT v. Geotech Construction
Corp 133 CTR 468 (Ker).
J.K. Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 21 April, 2005
2) as it stands now as a result of revision in 1999 excludes the construction
contracts from the scope of AS-7. The same has been reproduced in para
10 above. Therefore, the stand of the revenue that AS-7 which permits
only one method to be adopted i.e. percentage completion method is
incorrect. The decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by the revenue in
the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. v. UOI (supra) on facts is quite
distinguishable. Their Lordships were dealing with Accounting Standard
(AS-22). In that case, the assessee, a public limited company, was
carrying on business of manufacture and sale of automotive tyres, tubes,
sugar and agrigenetics, challenged AS-22 issued by ICAI which was
mandatory for the companies listed in stock exchange in India in
preparation of their accounts for the financial year 2001-02 and onwards.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Fertilizer Traders [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 13 February, 2004
29. The ld. representative for the assessee submitted confirmation
letters of lenders were enclosed vide paperbook pages 24 to 43 and details
of names, addresses and PAN of the lenders were contained in Annexure 2
to Form 3CD (page 44 and 45 of the paperbook). Hence he relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa
ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc.
Page 21 of 26
Corporation 52 CTR 138, wherein it was held where assessee furnished
names and addresses of the creditors, their PAN and GI numbers, it was
the duty of the AO to proceed further by issuing summons so as to verify
the genuineness and to make further enquiries.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Baishnab Charan Mohanty on 28 August, 1995
He also relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in CIT v. Baishnab Charan
Mohanty (212 ITR 199) to the same effect.
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shankaranarayan Construction Co. on 17 March, 1991
In this
connection the ld. Representative invited our attention to the decision of the
Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Shankarnarayanan Construction 197 ITR
688, particularly para 4 of the judgment. In this case, the Hon'ble High
Court held that the assessee executing projects for a power corporation
wherein the assessee receives the amounts in excess of what was actually
due and such excess receipt is adjusted towards future work, cannot be
treated as assessee's income accrued. The Hon'ble High Court held every
kind of receipt cannot be taxed, such excess amounts are to be considered
as deposits in the hands of the assessee and excess receipts cannot be
taxed. The assessee's representative submitted actually as per the
method followed by the assessee, expenditure incurred on the project is
claimed in the year of appropriation of income, the method of accounting
followed by the assessee is in tune with the generally accepted accounting
policy of matching costs with revenue i.e., when the revenue is taken into
ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc.
Page 12 of 26
account, the commensurate expenditure is also taken and vice versa. He
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case
of Khoday Distillers Ltd. (ITRC No.19, 20 and 21 of 1993 dated
12.09.1995), wherein it was held that "When one of the accounting
procedures is to compute the profits only on the completion of the contract
and that method is adopted by the assessee throughout, it cannot be said
that the view taken by the Tribunal is wrong."
Madhuvana House Building Co-Operative ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 December, 2001
8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific
query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee
has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y.
2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the
ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc.
Page 8 of 26
assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The
assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal,
Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative
Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948],
H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs.
Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the
contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be
made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
1