Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: finance act 1992 section 107 amendment of section 5 Sorted by: recent Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat madras Page 1 of about 59 results (0.348 seconds)

R.M. Valliappan Vs. the Assistant Commissioner

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2006)103ITD63(Chennai)

1. By his order dated 19.4.06, the Hon'ble President, ITAT, was pleased to constitute a Special Bench in this case to consider the following issue: Whether membership card of Madras Stock Exchange could be construed to be a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; exconsequenti, consideration of the alleged transfer of membership card is exigible to capital gains tax? 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee individual had sold the membership card of Madras Stock Exchange ('MSE' for short) to M/s. ASERA Securities (P). Ltd. ('ASERA1 for short) for a total consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for which shares were allotted. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the membership card of MSE constituted a capital asset and hence the gains arising on the transfer of such card constituted capital gains. However, the assessee was of the view that it was not an asset but merely a personal right, a personal permission, which was not capable o...

ito Vs. P.C. Ramakrishna (Huf)

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

1. These two appeals, one by the revenue and one by the assessee are directed against two different orders of the Commissioner (Appeals).The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 783/Mad/2001 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XII, Chennai dated 19-2-2001 confirming the order of the assessing officer regarding refusal to recognize the partition of HUF under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 907/Mad/2001 is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XII, dated 19-2-2001 in respect of the assessment framed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act.2. First we will take up the assessees appeal in ITA No. 783/Mad/2001.The only issue in this appeal relates to confirming the order of the assessing officer by the Commissioner (Appeals) in regard to refusal to grant recognition to the family partition of HUF under Section 171 of the Act which took place on 16-9-1994.3. The briefly stated facts of the case are...

Southern Travels Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2006)103ITD198(Chennai)

1. The assessee, a Registered Firm, has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Madurai dated 19^th of February, 2004. This Special Bench has been constituted for considering the following question: In view of the provisions of Section 32(2)(iii) whether it is possible to set off the brought forward depreciation loss against capital gains? 2. On behalf of the assessee firm, Mr. C.V. Rajan, Senior Advocate along with Shri S.P. Chidambaram appeared and for the Department, Mr.C. Venkateswarlu appeared. The counsel for the assessee and the Departmental Representative placed before us in clear terms the contentions that they both felt are relevant to the issue before us. We appreciate the arguments and contentions placed by both of them as they were eloquent and relevant to the issue before us. Considering the rival submissions, we would be rendering our conclusions along with the reasons therefor in the following paragraphs.3. The issue that is r...

Alankar Business Corporation Vs. the Dcit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2007)105ITD629(Chennai)

1. The appeal has been filed by the assessee in the name of Chennai Bottling Co. Ltd. A petition for recording change of name has been filed in which it is mentioned that name of the company was changed to "Alankar Business Corporation Ltd." which was approved by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore on 11.4.2003. A copy I of certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies has also been filed and therefore, change of name is permitted.2. The assessee had raised various grounds which were of argumentative nature and therefore, the Bench had directed the Id. counsel for the assessee on 1^st March, 2006 (i.e. previous hearing) to file concise grounds of appeal which have been duly filed and are as under: (1) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining wrong computation of short term capital gain of Rs. 1,88,47,376 by the Assessing Officer by adding notional breakage and deducted from WDV on an estimated basis without considering the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. (2) The CIT(A) ou...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Investment Trust of India Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2006)102ITD135(Chennai)

1. All the five appeals of the Revenue relate to asst. yrs. 1991-92 to 1995-96. We heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.2. Let us first take ITA No. 119/Mad/1999 which relates to asst. yr.1991-92. The only issue arises for consideration is regarding the valuation of the share of Tata Tea Ltd. for the purpose of capital gains.3. We heard both the representatives of the Revenue and the assessee.Tata Tea Ltd. offered to buy majority of the shares in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. Tata Tea Ltd. offered one share of Tata Tea Ltd. and Rs. 100 for every two shares of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. For the purpose of capital gain, the AO took the market rate of the Tata Tea Ltd. on the date of exchange at Rs. 320. However, on appeal by the assessee, the first appellate authority found that the market value of Tata Tea Ltd. would become relevant only when the assessee sells the share of Tata Tea Ltd. In this case, since there was an exchange of Tata Tea Ltd. for Co...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Tamil Nadu Silk Producers

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2007)105ITD623(Chennai)

1. These appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the CIT(A)-IX, Chennai. The relevant assessment years involved in these appeals are 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1999-2000.2. The only common issue in all these appeals of the Revenue is, as to whether reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, is in violation of Section 14A of the Act or not in the given facts and circumstances of the case.3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the case records. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 53,15,566. While completing the original assessments under Section 143(3) of the Act for all the assessment years under consideration, the AO allowed the entire deduction. Subsequently, the AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and in reassessment, he restricted the deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) to the net receipts of Rs. 38,20,117 by reducing the expe...

The Income Tax Officer Vs. Mr. O.M. Shahul Hameed

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2007)106ITD342(Chennai)

1. This appeal by the Revenue and C.O. by the assessee emanate out of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 18.11.03 and pertain to assessment year 1996-97.2. The issue raised in Revenue's appeal is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in cancelling the assessment as barred by limitation even though confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on merits.3. In the CO., the assessee has remonstrated that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on merits.4. To briefly stratify the case, during the course of proceedings Under Section 230A, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee purchased a property at New No. 106, Old No. 39, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai-20 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,300/- vide sale deed 31.10.95. The property was purchased by the assessee from his father Shri O.M. Umar Mohideen. In addition to the sale price as mentioned in the sale...

Omega Estates Vs. the Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2007)106ITD427(Chennai)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 17.08.05 and pertains to assessment year 2001-02.2. The issue raised in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions to the extent of Rs. 15,80,289/- by rejecting the sale price of flats claimed to have been received by assessee (and as evidenced by the registered sale deeds) and substituting the same by an estimated sale price. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of purchasing land and building and developing rights therein, to develop the property either as owner or as joint venture with the land/property owner and sell the same. At times, the assessee only developed the property for the property owner. During the year under consideration, development work was going on in respect of three properties. However, there was sale of residential flats in two of the buildings only during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. One of the two buildings was ...

Kwality Milk Foods Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2006)100ITD199(Chennai)

1. Under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act") the Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") has constituted this Special Bench to consider the following question: Whether amendment in proviso to Section 43B by Finance Act, 2003 could be construed to be curative, as such retrospective in nature? 2. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. We have also heard the ld.counsel for the Intervener. The assessee in this case paid contribution to Provident Fund before the due date applicable in its case for furnishing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act, albeit payment was made beyond due date prescribed in Section 36(1)(vd) of the Act for making the contribution to the employee's account in the relevant fund under the law. Question posed before the Tribunal was whether deduction can be allowed in respect of the said payment in view of ...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shripet Cybertech Systems Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2006)101ITD201(Chennai)

1. This is an appeal by the Department in which the issue is with regard to disallowance of public issue expenses made with reference to the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act deleted by the CIT(A) as not falling within the purview of prima facie adjustment.2. Rival contentions in regard to the above have been very carefully considered. The Assessing Officer has clearly noted that Supreme Court has held that expenses relating to increase in the capital of the company would be capital in nature. However we would like the Assessing Officer to verify whether the expenses charged to public issue expenses are relating to increase in capital only or it includes other expenses as well. He would, therefore, limit the prima facie adjustment to the amount relating to increase in the capital of the company. The appeal is allowed in part.1. I have gone through the order of the learned Senior Vice-President in the above case. As I am unable to agree with the findings of the lear...