Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: cpt
 
 
From the Courts »
 M/s Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.Et Compagnie Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu) Vs. ESPN Software India Ltd.
 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,
 ITO vs. Gymkhana Club (ITAT Chandigarh)
 SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. CCE (Supreme Court)
 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Exemption Vs. The Fertilizers Association Of India
 The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central-1 Vs. Sameer Gupta
 Msd Pharmaceuticals (P)ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
 The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
 M/s Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.Et Compagnie Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi
 M/s Ess Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C.Et Compagnie (Earlier Known As M/s Espan Star Sports Mauritius Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Subhash Lalji Shah,B-403, Prime Avenue,S.V. Road,Near Nanavati Hospital,Vile Parle, (West),Mumbai- 400 056. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 17 & 28,Mumbai.
July, 20th 2012
             IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  MUMBAI BENCHES "E", MUMBAI

             BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (J.M.)
                   AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (A.M.)

                 ITA Nos. 6596 to 6598/Mum/2010
           Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

Subhash Lalji Shah,                       Deputy Commissioner of Income
B-403, Prime Avenue,                      Tax,
S.V. Road,                                Central Circle ­ 17 & 28,
Near Nanavati Hospital,           Vs.     Mumbai.
Vile Parle, (West),
Mumbai- 400 056.
PAN : AAHPS 6211 N
            (Appellant)                            (Respondent)

                      Assessee by : Shri Dharmesh Shah
                      Revenue by : Shri Baban D. Patil

                     Date of hearing            12-7-2012
                  Date of pronouncement         18-7-2012

                              ORDER

PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, J.M.

     All these appeals preferred by the assessee are directed against the

separate order dtd. 4-6-2010 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for assessment

years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08.         Since facts are identical and

common issue is involved, all these appeals are disposed of by this

common order for the sake of convenience.





2.   Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee an individual

derives income from salary, house property, business, capital gain and

other sources. During the course of assessment proceeding, the A.O.
                                    2   ITA No. 6596 to 6598/MUM/2010



observed that the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.

3,09,477/- and claimed as exempt. The assessee was asked to furnish

details of agricultural crop cultivated, gross income earned, details of

expenses etc. In response, the assessee submitted part details in respect

of the agricultural products sold by the assessee and consideration

received. In the absence of complete details and supporting evidence, the

A.O. considering the fact that the assessee has shown agricultural

income of Rs. 1,38,000/- for A.Y. 2001-02, Rs. 59,540/- for A.Y. 2002-03

and Rs. 41,223/- for A.Y. 2003-04, partly accepted the agricultural

income and balance amount treated as income from unexplained sources

and added to the total income of the assessee as under:-


    A.Y.         Agricultural    Agricultural income        Balance
                 income    shown accepted    by   the       income
                 by the assessee A.O.(Rs)                   treated     as
                 (Rs)                                       income from
                                                            unexplained
                                                            sources. (Rs)

    2005-06      3,09,447           1,50,000                1,59,447

    2006-07      5,32,438           1,50,000                3,82,438

    2007-08      6,36,934           1,50,000                4,86,934






Before the ld. CIT(A), it was stated that the agricultural operations were

carried out by Mr. Minat Karamshi on sharing basis.             Mr. Minat

Karamshi will carry out the agricultural operations and meet out all

expenses and 80% of the agricultural produce will go to the appellant

and balance 20% will go to Mr. Minat. The ld. CIT(A) while disbelieving
                                    3   ITA No. 6596 to 6598/MUM/2010



the above story observed that if the farmer carries out the agricultural

operations and meets out all the expenses, then the farmer certainly will

get 40% of the proceeds and accordingly he treated 60% of the

agricultural income shown by the assessee as agricultural income and

directed the A.O. to add 40% as income from other sources for all the

above assessment years.


3.    Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

before us challenging in all the common grounds the part denial of

agricultural income shown by the assessee and treating the same as

income from other sources.


4.    At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee while

reiterating the same submissions as submitted before the A.O. and the

ld. CIT(A) further submits that he has no objection if 50% relief of the

amount of addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is allowed.


5.    On the other hand the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and

the ld. CIT(A).


6.    We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties

and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are

not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee has

not furnished the complete details and supporting evidence of the gross

agricultural income earned by the assessee.     However, considering the

totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view
                                    4    ITA No. 6596 to 6598/MUM/2010



that there is no dispute that 3.56 acres of land is owned by the assessee,

we in the interest of justice, consider it fair and reasonable that 50% of

the amount as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be treated as agricultural

income and balance 50% be treated as income from other sources and

accordingly we direct the A.O. to allow due relief to the assessee which is

worked as under:-


       Asst. Year   Addition       50%    of   the   50%     of    the
                    sustained by amount treated      balance amount
                    the CIT(A)(Rs) as agricultural   treated        as
                                   income(RS).       income      from
                                                     other
                                                     sources(Rs)

       2005-06      1,23,779/-     61,890/-          61,890/-

       2006-07      2,12,975/-     1,06,487/-        1,06,488/-

       2007-08      2,54,774/-     1,27,387/-        1,27,387/-



We hold an order accordingly.      The common grounds taken by the

assessee for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 are,

therefore, partly allowed.


7.    In the result, assessee's appeals stand partly allowed.


      Order pronounced in the open court on 18-7-2012.


               Sd/-                                 Sd/-
         (N.K. BILLAIYA)                  (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL)
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                        JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 18th July, 2012.
RK
                                 5   ITA No. 6596 to 6598/MUM/2010




Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT ­ 39, Mumbai
4. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -II, Mumbai
5. Departmental Representative, Bench `E', Mumbai

//TRUE COPY//                                 BY ORDER


                                  ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Customer relationship management software CRM software Operational CRM Collaborative CRM

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions