Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Asr.)1098
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar for the asst. yr. 1985-86.2. The only ground taken by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 4,65,579 claimed in respect of scientific research under Section 35 of the IT Act. The facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed deduction of expenditure of Rs. 4,65,579 (being expenditure on scientific research).The AO disallowed the same. This matter travelled to Tribunal, Amritsar Bench. It was contended before the Tribunal that as per provisions of Section 35(3) the Board was duty-bound to refer the question as to whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on scientific research actually constituted for scientific research. It was also submitted that such exercise was required to be done by the Department and not by the assessee. It was submitted that these provisions of the Act were totally overlooked by the Revenue. Finding merit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Asr.)650
1. This is a bunch of seven appeals filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, all dt. 27th May, 2003, for the asst. yrs. 1994-95 to 2000-01, respectively. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First we will take up appeal for the asst. yr. 1994-95. The only issue raised in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the AO on the basis of confessional statement given by the assessee before the DDIT (Inv.) representing unexplained investment in the construction of two shops. The facts of the case are that the assessee was employed with Punjab State Electricity Board as meter reader. The DDIT (Inv.) summoned him on 26th March, 2001, and recorded the statement of the assessee. In his statement, the assessee admitted that he had purchased a plot in Sidh Mohalla, Soda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Asr.)485
1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the CIT(A), Ludhiana, for the block period from 1st April, 1990 to 6th April, 2000.2. At the outset, the Revenue has raised an additional ground of appeal to the effect that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,01,690, which was essentially part of the market value of the seized IVPs of face value of Rs. 16,20,000 and the said market value was required to be brought to tax under Section 69 of the IT Act. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that all the relevant facts relating to this ground of appeal are already on record and this is purely a legal issue, therefore, the Revenue should be allowed to raise this additional ground before the Tribunal.3. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S.S. Kalra, vehemently opposed the admission of the additional ground. He submitted that at the time of completing the assessment, the AO has not made additio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Asr.)483
1. This appeal by the Revenue emanates from the order passed by the CIT(A) on 28th March, 2003 in relation to the block period 1st April, 1989 to 27th July, 1999.2. The facts apropos to ground No. 1 are that search action was taken under Section 132 of the IT Act on 27th July, 1999 in respect of St.Soldier School and Sh. Anil Chopra group concerns covering business and residential premises of Sh. Anil Chopra, his family members and others, including residential premises situated at 331, SUS, Nagar, Jalandhar, and locker No. 37/2 with CUCB, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar, belonging to Smt. Shanta Chopra, the assessee in question, and Smt. Neelam Katyal.As a result of this operation under Section 132(2), block assessment proceedings were initiated in the name of the assessee also. A loose paper was found bearing date of 15th Dec., 1997 which read as under: 4,61,000 F.D.The assessee was required to furnish the explanation of this document.It was stated that all the investments made by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Asr.)466
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, dt. 14th Nov., 2000, for the asst. yr. 1997-98.2. We have heard the learned Representatives of both the parties and gone through the observations of the authorities below and detailed submissions in the paper book filed by the counsel for the assessee.3. This appeal is filed on three effective grounds, which we will take up as under: 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs, 1,45,007 made by the AO on account of commission paid to the partner.3.1. The assessee-firm is partnership firm constituted by two partners, namely, Shri Prabh Dayal Dhiman and M/s Dhiman System (India) Ltd., represented by Miss Nishi Walia, director. The AO noticed that commission of Rs. 1,45,007 had been paid to M/s Dhiman System (India) Ltd. as per p. 3, para 6 of the audit report. The AO pointed out that there was no provision in the partnership de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Asr.)288
1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the two orders of CIT(A), Jalandhar, in the cases of two assessees mentioned in the caption of this order for the asst. yr. 1993-94. Since the issue involved in both the appeals are identical, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The only common ground raised in both the cases is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the income disclosed in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the IT Act. The facts of the case are that the action under Section 132(1) was carried out by the IT authorities at the premises of the assessees' father late Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma on 26th March, 1993. During the course of such action, the authorised officer recorded joint statement of both the assessees and their father under Section 132(4) of the IT Act. In their joint statement, late Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma (father) disclosed income of Rs. 5 la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Asr.)309
1. These two appeals of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order passed by the learned CIT(A), Jammu, with headquarters at Amritsar, dt. 23rd March, 1998, relevant to the asst.yrs. 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 whereas these appeals concern the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91. "1. That the learned CIT(A) has in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, grossly erred in law and fact in upholding assessment proceedings started under Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148 to 'S. Swaran Singh, manager and attorney of Shri Mohan Singh (Deceased)" through L/H (authorising Sh. Swaran Singh general attorney). 2. That the proceedings started are illegal and bad in law and do not confer lawful jurisdiction on the ITO. Again the assessment made is also illegal, inoperative and unlawful, being against the provisions of law. The same has been wrongly upheld. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, further erred in confirming...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2004)85TTJ(Asr.)1045
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), Bhatinda, dt. 8th March, 1999, relevant to the asst. yr. 1991-92 whereby deletion of penalty of Rs. 19,430 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) has been challenged.2. Hearing in this case was earlier concluded on 31st March, 2004, and before order under Section 254(1) could be passed, a D.O. letter No.P/35/2004, dt. 12th July, 2004, was received on 20th July, 2004 from the learned President of the Tribunal and paras 1 and 2 of the said D.O. letter read as under : "I am enclosing the resolutions passed at the conference of the Vice Presidents held in Bangalore on 14th and 15th of June, 2004. The resolutions record certain important decisions taken after due deliberations, in the interests of uniformity of functioning of the Tribunal, I think it would serve the interests of justice well if they are followed by you in letter and spirit while discharging your duties. In case of any difficulty or doubt in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)93ITD253(Asr.)
1. This appeal by the Revenue and C.O. by the assessee emanate from the order passed by the CIT (A) on 11.05.2000 in relation to the assessment year 1997-98.2. First ground of the C.O. was not pressed by the learned. A.R. The same, therefore, stands dismissed 3. Second and the only ground of the C.O. by the assessee and ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal deal with the addition made on account of undervaluation of closing stock Gold and Silver ornaments.3.1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-firm was dealing in purchase and sale of gold and silver ornaments. Due to the death of one of the partners, namely, Shri Kuldip Chand, the firm was dissolved on 25.2.1997 and thereafter, the business was taken over by the sole remaining partner, Shri Varinder Kumar in his individual capacity as sole proprietor. The assessed had shown valuation of closing stock of gold at Rs. 1326403/- and that of silver at Rs. 92903/- on 25.2.1997. The AO called upon the assessee to exp...
Tag this Judgment!