Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : LC(2007)(3)269
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-m, Chennai in ITA Nos. 173 and 174/2006-07 dt. 4th Oct., 2006. The assessments were framed by the Asstt. CIT, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai for the asst. yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05 vide his both orders dt. 27th March, 2006 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Since the issue is found to be common, both the appeals were elaborately heard together and for the sake of convenience and brevity, a consolidated order is passed.2. The only issue in these two appeals of the assessee is whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) or not in the given facts and circumstances.3. During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the assessee is not pressing the first ground of the appeal regarding issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and hence, he is withdrawing this ground. The learned Depar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2007)288ITR150(Chennai)
1. This appeal of the assessee relates to the block assessment year 1991-92 to 2001-02. The only issue arises for consideration is whether there can be a levy of surcharge over and above the rate of tax prescribed under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Shri Sridhar, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a search in the assessee's premises on 8.2.2001. The assessment proceeding was completed for the block assessment year 1991-92 to 2001-02 under Section 158BC on 27.2.2003 determining the total undisclosed income at Rs. 22,31,200/-. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) levied income tax on the above determined undisclosed income at 60%. Apart from this, the A.O. also levied 17% as surcharge payable over and above the 60% tax. The assessee is now challenging only the levy of surcharge over and above the Income tax.3. Shri Sridhar, the learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that Section 113 of the I.T. Act provides rate of tax at 60% in respect of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2008)111ITD37(Chennai)
1. These cross appeals by the Revenue and the assessee for the assessment year 1997-98 arise out of the order of CIT(A)-IX, Chennai.2. First we will take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 2021/Mds/2000.The first issue for consideration relates to recognition of income from non-performing assets. The facts of the case as apparent from record are that assessee is a non banking financial, company and recognised by Reserve Bank of India. The assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that assessee had not included income on non-performing assets (NPAs), while computing the returned income. The assessee vide his letter dated 26 February 2000 stated that it was following prudential norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and based on the guidelines issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Reserve Bank of India they have not recognised income in Profit & Loss A/c in respect of no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2007)103ITD457(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are emanating out of the order of the CIT(A)-III, Chennai, dt. 4th Oct., 2002. The assessment was framed by the AO under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1997-98.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel of the assessee made a mention during the course of hearing that the cross-objection of the assessee be taken first for hearing as the jurisdictional issues are raised by the assessee by way of cross-objections. The learned Departmental Representative agreed to this.3. The first issue in the cross-objection is regarding reopening of the assessment under Section 147 r/w Section 148 of the Act. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 26th Nov., 1997, which was revised on 18th March, 1998. The revised return was taken up for scrutiny by the AO by issuing notice under Section 143(2) and completed the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Chennai)637
1. This is an appeal of the assessee that is moved with reference to assessment that was framed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act.2. One of the issues that has been raised by the assessee in the appeal is with regard to non-allowing of deduction for compensation of Rs. 11,90,960 that was paid to M/s Sabari Builders. This ground was not insisted upon during the course of hearing. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed.3. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Mohandass contended that the assessee is aggrieved with regard to two issues of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and Rs. 3.43 lakhs which were added to the income of the assessee. The first item of Rs. 7.5 lakhs was an advance that was made by the appellant's wife for purchase of a land. It was realised subsequent to the payment that the person who received the amount claiming that he was a power of attorney-holder of the property, was a fraud. It was also reported subsequently that the land which the person had committed to buy for the as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2007)103ITD479(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 30th March, 2005 and relates to the asst. yr. 1997-98. The assessee raised the ground that CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act.2. The brief facts of the issue are that the original assessment for the asst. yr. 1997-98 was completed under Section 143(l)(a) on 16th Dec, 1998. Subsequently, reassessment notice was issued under Section 148 and reassessment was completed on 22nd March, 2002 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147. During reassessment the AO added a sum of Rs. 1,43,847 to the returned income of Rs. 69,536 and thereby he determined the total income at Rs. 2,13,373. The AO also levied interest under Sections 234A and 234B. The assessee filed a petition under Section 154 on 13th Sept., 2004 for deletion of interest levied under Section 234B of the Act since there was no liability to pay advance tax in accordance with Section 208. The AO dismissed the petition u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2006)284ITR53(Chennai)
1. These appeals of the assessee are directed against the different orders of CIT (Appeals), Tiruchy, both dated 30.3.2005. The relevant assessment year involved in these appeals is 2001-02.2. The only issue in these appeals of the assessee, is whether the sum paid on voluntary retirement scheme, (hereinafter called as VRS) subject to a limit of Rs. 5,00,000/- are exempt from being charged to tax under Section 10(10C) of the I.T. Act, 1961, even, if the payment is made in instalments and the same are paid in subsequent years? 3. The briefly stated facts in these cases are that the assessee's received a sum more than Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of voluntary retirement compensation including the arrears which they got in two instalments, first in the year of retirement and second in the following year. The assessee retired from BHEL, Trichy and opted for voluntary retirement in August 1999 under the BHEL VRS. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act for Rs. 5,00,000/- i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2006)280ITR179(Chennai)
1. These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and most of the issues involved are common. Therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Before we proceed to decide individual appeals, we would like to note that principally there are three main issues for our adjudication and we think once these issues are determined, the appeals can be easily decided. Therefore, we proceed to examine these principal issues, which are as follows :- i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth tax? ii) Whether deduction of debt claimed is permissible under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act? (i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth tax? 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a sick industrial company and the company made a reference to Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR) under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2005)278ITR41(Chennai)
This, appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 14-8-1997 cancelling the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act.There was a search in the assessee's premises under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, on 14-12-1995. The revenue authorities seized various documents and a cash of Rs. 1,00,000. In response to a notice issued under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, the assessee filed the return of income for the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 declaring an income of Rs. 22,91,356. The assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 towards outstanding due before filing the block return. The assessee has also requested the assessing officer and other authorities to permit the assessee to pay the tax as per the block return in installments. This request of the assessee was not disposed of by the revenue authorities. The assessing officer issued notice under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act to show cause why penalty shou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Chennai)1033
This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 14-8-1997, cancelling the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act.There was a search in the assessee's premises under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, on 14-12-1995. The revenue authorities seized various documents and a cash of Rs. 1,00,000. In response to a notice issued under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, the assessee filed the return of income for the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 declaring an income of Rs. 22,91,356. The assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 towards outstanding due before filing the block return. The assessee has also requested the assessing officer and other authorities to permit the assessee to pay the tax as per the block return in instalments. This request of the assessee was not disposed of by the revenue authorities. The assessing officer issued notice under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act to show cause why penalty shou...
Tag this Judgment!