Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)111ITD379(Pune.)
1. Facts giving rise to the constitution of this Special Bench are that an application was submitted by the assessee for constitution of a Special Bench to resolve the controversy involved in the present bunch of appeals as to whether Gutkha manufactured by the assessee falls under the expression "tobacco preparations" within the meaning of Item No. 2 of the Eleventh Schedule to the I-T Act so as to deprive the assessee of the special relief Under Section 80-I and 80-IA of the I-T Act. In the said application, the assessee pointed out that a Division Bench of this Tribunal at Allahabad has taken the view in Kothari Products Ltd, v, ACIT, 38 ITD 285 that "Zarda Yukta Pan Masala" (pan masala containing tobacco) is not a "tobacco preparation" under Item No. 2 of the Eleventh Schedule and that the deduction Under Section 32AB and 80-1 of the I-T Act could not therefore be denied to the assessee on the ground that the said pan masala was a tobacco preparation within the meaning of Item No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)298ITR333(Pune.)
1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the CIT (Appeals)-III, Pune, passed on 17.03.2003. The corresponding assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle-8, Pune, on 10.07.2002, under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The other appeals in this case were sought to be consolidated on 10.8.2006 by obtaining the order of the Senior Member. However, the learned Counsel for the assessee made a statement at the Bar that he had informed the Senior Member that this appeal may be heard independent of the other appeals.Therefore, we proceed to decide this appeal.2. Ground No. 1 is against the findings of the learned CIT (Appeals) that the assessee was not entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 4.25 lakh in computing the income, being a contribution made to Alfa Laval Education Trust, in view of the provisions contained in Section 40A(9) of the Act. It was mentioned that he erred in not following the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1992)40ITD605(Pune.)
1. These appeals by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee arc consolidated and disposed of by a common order as they involve common issues. These appeals relate to the assessment year 1979-80 and arise out of similar orders passed by the CIT(Appeals), Nashik on 22-2-1988. The CIT(Appeals) held that capital gains tax is not leviable on transfer of agricultural lands and consequently deleted the capital gains assessed for this year.2. Briefly stated, the asscssees are six co-owners of agricultural land which was compulsorily acquired by the State under emergency provision 17 for construction of municipal market on 20-10-1978, i.e., 11 days before the end of the accounting year on 31-10-1978. The Award was given by the Acquisition Officer on 30-4-1979 fixing Rs. 2,03,878. The assessee received the money on 3-5-1979. Taking the case of Shri Mallikarjun Sidramappa Bidwe as model, fixed deposit of Rs. 2,00,000 was made in Osmanabad District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. within six...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)108ITD424(Pune.)
1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Pune, passed on 18th Feb., 2000. The corresponding order of assessment was made by the Jt. CIT, SR-2, Pune (hereinafter called the AO), on 25th Jan., 1999, under the provisions of Section 143(3).2.1 Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are against the finding of the learned CIT(A) that provisions of Section 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 1st April, 1996, are applicable to cash payment of Rs. 11,36,990 made to M/s Sanjeev Traders, Panvel. For the sake of ready reference, these grounds are reproduced below: 1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions of law it be held that, no disallowance in terms of provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act pertaining to transactions with M/s Sanjeev Traders situated at Panvel (District), Raigut, amounting to Rs. 11,36,990 (Rs. 21,66,680 - 10,29,690) is disallowable. It further be held that disallowance so made by the taxing authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1993)47ITD72(Pune.)
1. These appeals by the Talera group of assessees and other two assessees are heard and disposed of together as they involve common issue.2. These appeals pertain to assessment years 1988-89,1989-90 in respect of Talera group of cases and assessment year 1990-91 in respect of Rajkamal Constructions and assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 in respect of Shri Siddivinayak Foods P. Ltd. and arise out of similar orders of the CIT(A) wherein he has confirmed the various penalties imposed by the Dy. CIT (Admn.) under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for failure of the assessees to file annual return under Section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without reasonable cause.Various grounds have been taken by the appellants to impugne the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the penalties levied. In the Talera group of cases, the appellants has also filed an additional ground to the effect that the penalty levied is enormous compared to the tax deducted at source and paid to the Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)112ITD103(Pune.)
1. ITA No 1180/PN/02 is filed by the assessee, directed against the CIT (A)'s order dt 23.1.2002 passed in the matter of an assessment made Under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the AO for the assessment year 95-96. ITA No. 714/PN/03 and C.O. No. 13/PN/06 relating thereto are connected to the matter of imposing penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) by the AO for the same assessment year 95-96. These two appeals and the cross objection were heard together and, as such, a common order is being passed, for the sake of convenience.2.1. We shall first take ITA No 1180/PN/02 filed by the assessee arising from the CIT (A)'s order passed in the matter of an assessment made Under Section 143(3) of the Act by the AO. The solitary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is as under: 1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the facts and submissions placed before him in relation la the claim of exemption Under Section 54F of the IT Act, 1961.2.2. The relevant facts giving rise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1991)36ITD118(Pune.)
1. These appeals are being decided by this common order. ITA No.183/Pune/89 2. This appeal is by the assessee and it relates to asst. yr. 1983-84.Ground No. 1 is as follows: The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting the claim for deduction of expenses of Rs. 15,36,568 in respect of earlier year expenses and particularly so when he has directed to increase the income assessed by Rs. 26,850 in respect of credits for earlier years.There is no dispute that the expenses pertained to earlier years. The assessee was following mercantile system of accounting. Consequently, we fail to see how these expenses could be allowed in this year when they do not pertain to this year. It was brought to our notice by the learned representative of the assessee that the assessee had initiated proceedings under Section 264 of the IT Act, 1961 for obtaining relief of deduction in the years to which those expenses pertained. That was the only remedy available to the assessee on the facts and in the circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2004)82TTJ(Pune.)481
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in denying the exemption under Section 54 in respect of the seven row, houses constructed by the appellant. This exemption was claimed by the appellant against the capital gains on sale of a flat at Mumbai of Rs. 1,08,30,625. 2. In this context, the learned AO was not justified in holding the view that as the appellant had invested the sale proceeds of the flat at Mumbai in a joint venture and as the seven row houses are received by the appellant towards his share of investment and profits, no exemption under Section 54 was admissible to the appellant. 3. Accordingly, the learned AO further erred in taking the capital gains of Rs. 1,08,30,625 on sale of flat at Mumbai as undisclosed income of the appellant. 4. The appellant submits that as per law, he was entitled to the exemption under Section 54 because of his acquisition of the row houses and thus the capital gains of Rs. 1,08,30,625 in respect of a flat at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1993)44ITD520(Pune.)
1. These appeals by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience as they involve common issue viz., whether the respondent club is liable to wealth tax or not. These appeals pertain to assessment years 1982-83 to 1988-89 and arise out of the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), Kolhapur dated 11-12-1989. The CWT (A) following the decision of the Tribunal, Pune Bench, in WTA No. 188/PN/1987 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Club v. CWT [1982] 136 ITR 697 held that the respondent club was not assessable to wealth tax for all these years under consideration. Accordingly he allowed the appeals for all these years under consideration.2. The revenue is in appeal on common grounds to urge that the CWT(A) erred in holding the status of the assessee as 'AOP' and further holding that the wealth of the assessee is not taxable in the status of AOP' and he erred in not following the decision of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1986)18ITD25(Pune.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee-trust against the order of the Commissioner dated 6-3-1984 for the assessment year 1980-81, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a trust governed by the provisions of the trust deed executed on or about 2-8-1976. There was no income assessable for the assessment year 1977-78. Assessments for 1978-79 and 1979-80 have been completed as if the shares are determinate, in the hands of the beneficiaries. For the assessment year 1980-81, the ITO processed the return dated 28-6-1980 on the same lines as in the past. He held that the income returned Rs. 1,52,300 should be modified to Rs. 1,54,790 for the purpose of determining the definite shares of 9 groups of beneficiaries. The ITO did not frame an assessment on the trustees in like manner as in the case of beneficiaries but chose to assess the beneficiaries direct under Section 166 of the Act (vide order dated 21-3-1983). The assessment order does not enlighten ...
Tag this Judgment!