9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,62,000. 2. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the manufacturing and selling of hydrated lime. For the year under consideration, the assessee declared g.p. at the rate of 15.4 per cent on total sales of Rs. 66,89,219 as against the rate of 17.7 per cent in the preceding year on total sales of Rs. 32.61 lakhs. In the opinion of the AO, on convers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions the Departmental Representative relied on the decisions in Mangal Chand Gordhan Das vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 706 (Assam), Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO (1982) 25 CTR (Raj) 175 : (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj), Abdul Bhai Abdul Kadar vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241 (Bom) and Homi Jehangir Cheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (SC). The learned counsel fully supported the order of the CIT(A). 4. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n help one to conclude that the accounts are defective and do not give a true picture about the income. The CIT(A) has given very sound reasons to delete the addition and we fully endorse the same. We sustain the deletion and do not disturb his order on this point. 5. The next ground pertains to the allowance of depreciation. The AO allowed depreciation on the cost of the assets after deducting s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allowed on commercial profits. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee following a Tribunal's decision in the case of Jodhpur Cable Conductors in ITA No. 1044/Jp/85. However, it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel that the issue has been decided by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Loonkar Tools (P) Ltd. (1995) 127 CTR (Raj) 77 : (1995) 213 ITR 721 (Raj) and CIT vs. Vishnu Oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
