Case ID |
266778d5-1d19-43c6-a4d2-cf13f3598d30 |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
D.B. IT APPEAL No. 18 OF 2005 |
Decision Date |
Mar 24, 2005 |
Hearing Date |
|
Decision |
The appeal by the Revenue against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, dated July 23, 2004, was dismissed. The Assessing Officer had made additions as income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 1995-96 based on a difference in cost declared by the assessee and the cost determined by the DVO on CPWD rates. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision, stating that PWD rates were more appropriate. The court ruled that the determination of construction cost is a question of fact, not law, and thus, no substantial question of law arose. The Assessing Officer's joint assessment order for three years was deemed inappropriate, as each year should be assessed separately. |
Summary |
This case revolves around the assessment of income tax under the Income Tax Act of 1961, specifically focusing on Section 143 concerning undisclosed income. The Revenue's appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision that favored the respondent by allowing a deduction based on PWD rates rather than CPWD rates for construction cost assessment. The court clarified that the determination of construction costs is factual and does not present a substantial question of law. The ruling emphasized the necessity for independent assessments for each assessment year rather than a joint order. Keywords include 'Income Tax Act', 'undisclosed sources', 'assessment year', 'construction cost', and 'Tribunal decision'. |
Court |
Rajasthan High Court
|
Entities Involved |
Not available
|
Judges |
RAJESH BALIA,
DINESH MAHESHWARI
|
Lawyers |
K.K. Bissa
|
Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
Respondents |
Smt. Prem KuMar courti Murdiya
|
Citations |
2008 SLD 942 = (2008) 296 ITR 508
|
Other Citations |
CIT v. Dinesh Talwar [2004] 265 ITR 344
|
Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
Sections |
143
|