Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2002)82ITD230(Pune.)
1. The main issue arising in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction on account of investment allowance in respect of machinery installed in the Diagnostic Centre.2. The assessee is a private limited company formed by 48 Shareholders including 8 Doctors. This is the first year of business. In the year under consideration, the assessee purchased and installed a Computerised Axial Tomography Scanner (CT Scanner) on 9-12-1989. This machine is used as one of the latest techniques for acquiring images of the internal parts of the human-body to detect various diseases in human-body. The cost of the machinery including the air-conditioner was Rs. 83, 89, 185. The contribution of the shareholders was Rs. 29 lakhs while rest of the money was borrowed from the Bank. The business was commenced w. e. f. 11-12-1989. It has employed three Radiologists, two CT Scan Technicians, two Ward Boys, two Darkroom Attendants and other Administrative staff. According to the assessee, it i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2001)70TTJ(Pune.)77
The common grievance projected in the two appeals by the assessee is that the Income Tax Officer (TDS) as also the Commissioner (Appeals) are not justified in holding that provisions of section 194C cover supply of packing material having some printing on it.The assessee's appeals are late by seven days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in which it has been stated that the unit has been running into losses for many years and application has been made to BIFR for having it declared as sick unit and because of the adverse financial position, the assessee has not been able to offer good salary to the staff and existing staff is somehow working under strained conditions. Many of the employees have left services of the company and accordingly, there was a delay of seven days in the filing of the appeals.After hearing both the parties and in view of the reasons explained by the representative of the assessee, we condone the delay of seven days and admit the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2002)81ITD238(Pune.)
1. The common grievance projected in the two appeals by the assessee is that the ITO (TDS) as also the CIT(A) are not justified in holding that provisions of s. 194C cover supply of packing material having some printing on it.2. The assessee's appeals are late by seven days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in which it has been stated that the unit has been running into losses for many years and application has been made to BIFR for having it declared as sick unit and because of the adverse financial position, the assessee has not been able to offer good salary to the staff and existing staff is somehow working under strained conditions. Many of the employees have left services of the company and accordingly, there was a delay of seven days in the filing of the appeals.3. After hearing both the parties and in view of the reasons explained by the representative of the assessee, we condone the delay of seven days and admit the appeals.4. The assessee-compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2002)75TTJ(Pune.)318
The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has justified in holding that the assessment framed by assessing officer was barred by period of limitation.The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are these. The premises of the assessee were searched on 15-1-1986, and by that time, no return was filed by the assessee. Hence, the notice under section 148 was issued on 16-9-1988. However, the return was not filed within the time allowed in the said notice. Finally, the return was filed by the assessee on 24-3-1991, which does not mention whether it was filed under section 139(4) or under section 148. No assessment could be framed by 31-3-1991. Again, the notice under section 148 was issued on 30-3-1992 after recording the reasons and the assessment was also completed on that very date. The said assessment was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that such assessment was barred by period of limitation. The said contention of the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) has justified in holding that the assessment framed by AO was barred by period of limitation.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are these. The premises of the assessee were searched on 15th Jan,, 1986, and by that time, no return was filed by the assessee. Hence, the notice under Section 148 was issued on 16th Sept., 1988. However, the return was not filed within the time allowed in the said notice. Finally, the return was filed by the assessee on 24th March, 1991, which does not mention whether it was filed under Section 139(4) or under Section 148. No assessment could be framed by 31st March, 1991. Again, the notice under Section 148 was issued on 30th March, 1992 after recording the reasons and the assessment was also completed on that very date. The said assessment was challenged before the CIT(A) on the ground that such assessment was barred by period of limitation. The said contention of the assessee was a...
Tag this Judgment!