Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Itat Madras Court April 1998 Judgments Home Cases Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Itat Madras 1998 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.052 seconds)

S. Punjabi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) relating to the asst. yr. 1985-86. The first ground of appeal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 28,500 has not been pressed by the authorised representative of the assessee and it is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.2. Ground Nos. 2 to 9 relate to the main grievance of the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) confirming an addition of Rs. 1,02,000 under s. 69 to the assessee's income. The facts of the case have to be noticed before plunging into the provisions of s. 69 of the IT Act and the interpretation of the same. The assessee is an individual. For his failure to file the return of income, notice under s. 148 was issued and on the basis of which the assessee filed Income-tax return showing a loss of Rs. 8,980. There was a search in the case of the assessee on 16th September, 1986. In the seized material it was found by the AO that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 70,000 in New Bank of India, ...

P.K. Kaliannan and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (1999)68ITD401(Mad.)

1. These appeals filed by different assessees are directed against the orders of the Asst. CIT under s. 143(3) r/w s. 158BC(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the block assessment period from 1st April, 1985 to 28th November, 1995. All these four appeals are decided by a common order as common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals.2. The following grounds of appeal have been raised in the case of Shri P. K. Kaliannan (Indl.) in Appeal No. 19/Mad/97 : (i) The Asstt. CIT erred in taking at the rate of 60 per cent the aggregate of the share of profits, interest and partnership salary from the firm, M/s Senthan Kandan & Co. (ii) The Asstt. CIT erred in his computation of income without allowing the basic exemption and the exemptions under s. 88 of the IT Act. (iii) The Asstt. CIT erred in holding that above sums as undisclosed income without considering the fact that the tax under s. 158B is leviable at 60 per cent while in the hands of the firm it would be less.3. At the ti...

income-tax Officer Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

1. The appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee are consolidated together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. At the outset, the authorised representative of the assessee vide his letter dt. 28th August, 1997, has made a preliminary objection, which is reproduced below : Re : Appeals 2366 to 2377/Chennai/1996-ITO vs. Indian Airlines Ltd., Southern Regional Office, Madras. In the above matter, your kind attention is invited to the fact the above captioned appeals relate to a dispute between a Government Department and a public sector undertaking and, therefore, such appeals can only be filed in accordance with the law laid down by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ONGC vs. Collector of Central Excise & Customs and the Cabinet Secretariat circulars, issued from time to time, to implement the Supreme Court directives. Hon'ble Tribunal have, in the matter of Indian Airlines vs. Asstt. CIT (1...

P. Govindaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2000)72ITD57(Mad.)

1. By this reference application the assessee seeks reference of the following questions for the opinion of the Hon'ble High Court :- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order dated 28-3-1988 for the assessment year 1984-85 was not barred by limitation 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal was right in holding that on the sale of properties held benami in the names of Nallendran Pillai and Late Thaimaman and others, capital gain arises in the hands of the assessee the real owner in spite of the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was given a proper opportunity of being heard 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in refusing the assessee's right to c...

J.K. Narayanan (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2000)242ITR45(Mad.)

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Investigation Circle, Erode, dated February 28, 1997, passed under section 143(3) read with section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the block period "April 1, 1995, to February 6, 1996".2. According to the Assessing Officer, who passed the impugned assessment order dated February 28, 1997, the status of the assessee is a Hindu undivided family (specified). Consequent to the search at the residence of the assessee and his business premises on February 6, 1996, a notice under section 158BC dated July 25, 1996, was issued. A return in Form No. 2B showing "nil" undisclosed income was filed on January 8, 1997. All the investments have been considered in the hands of the assessee in his individual status. However, the assessee has failed to file his returns of income for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1992-93 and 1993-94 as envisaged under section 139.Hence,...

Sanjeev M. Deshmukh and Another Vs. Competent Authority and Another

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (1998)233ITR6(Mad.)

1. This appeal under section 12 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), is by Sanjeev M. Deshmukh and Mrs. A. S. Deshmukh against the order of the competent authority, New Delhi, dated January 31, 1996, made under section 7(1) and (3) of the SAFEMA, whereby Flat No. 115-B in the 11th floor of Avinash Building situated in Andheri, Bombay, was forfeited.2. Ashok Kumar Kapoor (since deceased) was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1976 (COFEPOSA), by an order dated August 28, 1978. As he was considered as a person falling within the definition of section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA, a notice under section 6(1) of the Act dated September 27, 1980, was issued to him as an affected person, calling upon him to show cause as to why the properties mentioned in the said notice including Flat No. 115-B should not be forfeited. A reply to the said show-cause notice was issued by the dete...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Bundy Tubing of India Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order dt. 11th July, 1989, of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1977-78.2. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. Ground No. 2 relates to allowance of development rebate and ground No. 3 relates to the rate at which the development rebate will be available to the assessee.3. The brief facts of the case are that when the case went before the AO on the direction of the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the question of the rate at which the development rebate was to be allowed to the assessee, the AO noticed that the development rebate reserve amounting to Rs. 13.66 lakhs created by the assessee on 31st July, 1976, relevant for the asst. yr. 1977-78 was transferred by the assessee to its P&L a/c on 31st July, 1984, that is, before the expiry of a period of eight years. The profits available for appropriation in the year ended 31st July, 1984, after this transfer of the reserve amounted to Rs. 107.28 lakhs, but a sum of Rs. 19.21 lakhs was appropr...