Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member: 1. The appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-VI, Chennai dated 08-01-2013 relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. 2 I.T.A. No. 1268/Mds/2013 2. The assessee had filed his return of income for the AY. 2007-08 on 06-08-2007 admitting a loss `37,91,151/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made certain additions/ dis-allowances in the income returned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer apart from other dis-allowances made dis- allowance of `38,83,792/- in respect of interest payments. The assessee had purchased Business Asset, a Theatre at Mount Road, Chennai in the year 2004. The assessee had been screening films in the theatre till the end of the AY.2006-07. In the beginning of AY.2007-08, the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member: 1. The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Chennai dated 07-02-2013 relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 1999-2000. 2. The assessee is a Government company and a State Financial Investment Corporation. The assessee filed its return of income for the AY.1999-2000 on 31-12-1999 admitting a total income of `13,30,63,520/-. The return of income of the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') on 17-07-2000. Subsequently, re-assessment proceedings were initiated and assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed on 18-03-2002. The case of the assessee was remitted back by the Tribunal to verify whether the business activities of the assessee claimed as long term financing activities would come under explanation (e) of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The set aside assessment was completed on 29-12-2008. Again the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member The three appeals- ITA No. 1326/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2007-08, ITA No. 1327/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and ITA No. 917/Mds/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 have been filed by the Revenue impugning the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Chennai for the respective Assessment Years. 2. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is same, all the three appeals are taken up for adjudication together. At the request of the ld. DR, the facts are taken from ITA No. 1327/Mds/2012 relevant to the AY. 2008-09 as the assessment order for the AY. 2008-09 is detailed. The ld. AR of the assessee has not raised any objection to this request of the ld. DR. 3. The facts in brief are; the assessee is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing PY seals for dry batteries and torch lights. The assessee is manufacturing torch lights for M/s. Nippo Batteris Co....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Challa Nagendra Prasad, JM: 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai dated 11.6.2012 in ITA No.286/11-12 for the assessment year 2004-05. The only grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that reopening of assessment under section 147 is invalid. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of silencers and noise control equipments. For the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee filed return on 31.10.2004 admitting loss of Rs.44,91,276/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 1.6.2005 determining loss at Rs.43,52,762/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.2,95,98,553/-. While completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction claimed by the assessee under section 10B and made addi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Dr. O.K. Narayanan, Vice President This is a bunch of six appeals. Three appeals relate to the assessment year 2007-08. The remaining three appeals relate to the assessment year 2008-09. All the appeals are filed by the Revenue. The respondents are trusts constituted at different places under a common name "Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Trust" (SMBT for short). In the case of SMBT at Anakavoor the Revenue has filed two appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. In the cases of SMBT at Kilpennathur and Mamandur (Vembakkam) the Revenue has filed one appeal in each case for the assessment year 2007-08. In the cases of SMBT at Cheyyar and Santhavasal, the Revenue has filed one appeal in each case, relating to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. All the appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-IX at Chennai on 29-2-2012. The appeals arise out of the assessments completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 30.12.2004 for the above Asst. Year. In this appeal, the Revenue has taken the following ground: 1. The CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the Assessee is entitled for relief under Section 80-I to the extent of Gross total income of Rs. 9.89 crores. 2. The CIT(Appeals) erred in concluding that deduction under Section 80I of the I.T. Act should be restricted not to the profits and gains of business but to the Gross total income which includes income from other sources. 3. The CIT(Appeals) erred in concluding that the components of the Gross Total Income cannot be examined for limiting deduction under Section 80-I of the IT. Act. 4. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that when a particular item of income cannot be considered for computing deduction under Section 80-1 of the I.T. Act, the same cannot be considered for limiting the deduction under the said section. 5. Without prejudice to the above t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2004-05. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VII at Chennai dt. 8th July, 2005 and arises out of the proceedings completed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee in this case is an employee of a foreign company, by name, Pershing LLC. The assessee was deputed to India to work as Chief Operating Officer of Inautix Technologies India (P) Ltd., an affiliate to Pershing LLC. The assessee continued to be the employee of Pershing LLC and he drew his remuneration from Pershing LLC for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal.3. The employer of the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as a result of which the assessee discharged his entire tax liability that arose in India. The assessee was also liable to pay interest under Section 201 (1A) to the tune of Rs. 2.49 lakhs. This interest amount was, however, paid up by the employer. The assessee had also filed his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : LC(2008)(2)362
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 01.9.2006 for the above Asst. Year. In this appeal, the Revenue has taken the following grounds: 1. The CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the disallowance was made Under Section 43B whereas the Assessing Officer has only added as a revenue receipt. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that any taxes or levies collected or collectible by the Assessee on behalf of the Government is in the nature of deemed revenue receipt in the hands of the Assessee till it is paid to the Government. 3. The CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that it is only the discretion exercised by the Assessee not to route the receipt of service taxes through the P&L Account.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee company is engaged in the business of running a recording and dubbing studio, production of advertisement film and TV serials, manufacturing of specialised computers, tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Chennai)865
1. These appeals came before e as a Third Member to express my opinion on the following questions: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(Appeals) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the value of the assets and recalculate the depreciation which is subject matter of lease transaction with M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(Appeals) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of depreciation on the asset leased to M/s. Rajinder Pipes Ltd., Mumbai? 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition towards interest on transaction treated by the Assessing Officer as loan transaction? 2. I have heard the rival submissions. In regard to the first question the assessee leased out assets to M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast, Mumbai. It clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Chennai)532
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 21st March, 2007. The assessee raised the ground that CIT(A) erred in confirming the withdrawal of deduction under Section 80-IA and confirming the setting off the notionally carried forward loss against profits generated by the industrial undertaking during the relevant assessment year.2. The brief facts of the issue are that the assessee company has started three power projects. Two power projects in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1996-97 and one in the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1999-2000. As per findings of the CIT(A) which appeared in para 2 of appellate order, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IA for the first time in the current assessment year viz. asst. yr.2004-05. On going through the P&L a/c, it is seen that the assessee has been setting off loss from these three units against in come of the company for the earlier years. This is the first year of claim of ...
Tag this Judgment!