9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee is an AOP deriving income from Dal Oil Mills. While examining the books of account, the ITO found that the assessee crushed 9680 quintals of ground-nut and the yield of oil was disclosed at 2756 quintals. The yield of oil was, thus, found to be 38.25 per cent, which was considered low. The ITO estimated the yield at 39 per cent and the value of 51 quintals of deficit yield @ Rs. 41 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 9679-75-000 2755-70-500 38.25 per cent 4449-00 61.75 per cent 1974-75 4382-30-500 1266-73-000 38.20 per cent 2051-25 61.80 per cent From the above comparative chart it was shown that during the asst. yr. 1971-72, when the yield was shown by the assessee at 38 per cent, an addition of only Rs. 3,000 was made, while the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, clearly indicates that the yield of 38.25 per cent as disclosed by the assessee during the year under consideration cannot be said to be low or unreasonable. During the asst. yr. 1971-72, when yield shown by the assessee was 38 per cent, only a nominal addition of Rs. 3,000 was made. During the asst. yr. 1974-75 yield of 38.20 per cent has been accepted by the ITO. compared to the yield in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty levied under the ST Act. 7. The ITO disallowed a sum of Rs. 11,175 on account of sales tax penalties under the various sections of the ST Act. On appeal, the CIT (A) upheld the disallowance for the reason that payment of penalty for infringement of Sales Tax laws could not be allowed as a deduction. 8. Before us, the ld., counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the profit and loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only to the extent of Rs. 4,320 and not Rs. 11,175. 9. As regards the merit of the claim, the ld., counsel of the assessee frankly admitted that this sum of Rs. 4,320 was on account of payment of penalty under the sales tax laws and hence, to this extent the claim of the assessee is not tenable. We, therefore, upheld the disallowance of Rs. 4,320 as against Rs.11,175 upheld by the CIT (A). 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
