Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2011 (2) TMI 1489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the addition of Rs. 1,92,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. The facts relating to the same are stated in brief. The assessee, apart from doing business in rice and grocery items, is also engaged in plying of lorries on hire. He declared income from plying of lorries in accordance with the deeming provisions of s. 44AE of the Act at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month per lorry. The assessee was plying four lorries and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- was offered as income from that source. During the year under consideration, the assessee introduced a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- in his current account in the books of grocery business. The source there of was explained to be amount realized from the business of plying o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el vs. ITO in I.T.A. No. 608/Ahd/2010, vide its order dated 23rd July, 2010 has dealt with an identical issue and has held that the cash represented by the amount of depreciation should be treated as available with the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. In the case of Shri Rakesh Arvindbhai Patel vs. ITO, referred supra, we notice that the SMC bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad has dealt with an identical issue and has rendered its decision in accordance with the contention raised by the Ld A.R For the sake of convenience, we extract below the operative portion of the said decision. "I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2,12,696/-. Thus the income of the assessee before depreciation was Rs. 4,22,350 (Rs.2,12,695 +Rs.2,09,654/-) and after depreciation allowance of Rs. 2,09,654/- the net income of the assessee was Rs. 2,12,696/-. In other words the assessee by having income of Rs. 2,12,696/- had cash earning of Rs. 4,22,350/-. Thus in my considered opinion the maximum amount which could be added in the instant case comes to Rs. 2,309/- (Rs.4,24,659 - Rs. 4,22,350/- only. I therefore modify the orders of the lower authorities and sustain addition of Rs. 2,309/- and delete the addition to the extent of Rs. 2,09,654/-". 8. It can be noticed that the difference between the "income" and "cash earning" was clearly brought out in the above cited case. For the ....