Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)288ITR226(Hyd.)
1. This reference arises out of the appeal, against the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-I, Hyderabad under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act for the block period from 1.4.1989 to 18.11.1999, dated Nil, stated in the brief facts of the case by the assessee as completed on 27.4.2001, filed with the Tribunal on 13.12.2001, challenging the levy of surcharge of Rs. 3,65,680 on the tax of Rs. 86,56,800 levied at the special rate of 60%.2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the reasons furnished by the Division Bench, which led to the constitution of the Special Bench. Its reasons are extracted below: 2 The short issue in this appeal is whether the levy of surcharge in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2002, is valid in a block assessment made under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act. The tax has to be charged in a block assessment in terms of Section 159BA(2) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 113 of the said Act. .1. The undisclosed inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : LC(2007)(3)269
..... building housing projects and for claiming deduction under section 80-ib(10), finance act, 2000 w.e.f. 1st april, 2000 has laid down various conditions and the provisions of section 80-ib amended by various finance acts as amended w.e.f. 1st april, 2000 by the finance act, 2000 and by the finance act, 2003 and as substituted by the finance (no. 2) act, 2004, the housing projects must be approved on or before 31st march, 2007 by the local authority. these provisions envisage further ..... that for the eligibility of deduction under section 80-ib(10) of profits from such housing projects, the following conditions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2005)92TTJ(Ahd.)645
1. In the above mentioned cases, the Hon'ble President of Tribunal has referred the following question for the consideration of Special Bench : "Whether penalty can be levied Under Section 271(1)(c) in cases where the assessed income is loss having regard to the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, and by the Finance Act, 2002 ?" 2. The facts which are common in all the cases are that all the assessees have furnished the return disclosing "loss" and what was finally assessed was also "loss" and the assessment years pertaining were after the amendment by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, and before the amendment made by Finance Act, 2002. Several counsels appeared on behalf of the assessees.3. Shri K.H. Kaji, senior advocate appeared in the case of Apsara Processors vide ITA No. 284/Ahd/2004 and Khedkar Brothers Trading Co.(P) Ltd. vide ITA No. 251/Ahd/2002. He argued at length. His arguments can be summarised as under : That Section 271(1)(c) provides for levy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)92ITD468(Kol.)
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the ld.CIT(A)'s order dated 7th March, 2002 for the assessment year 1998-99.The assessee has also filed a Cross Objection in connection with the appeal filed by the Revenue.2. The only issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is with regard to the inclusion of amount actually collected by the assessee from the tenants on regular basis aggregating to Rs. 36,72,918/- which represents surcharge on Municipal tax.3. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue is now squarely and fully covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of ITAT, Special Bench reported in (2004) 88 ITD 247(SB) in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1997-98. Respectfully following the Special Bench decision, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is reversed and that of the A.O. is restored. This ground is, therefore, decided in favour of the Revenue.4. Now coming to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, we observe tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1993)45ITD500(Pune.)
1. These appeals by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience, as they relate to same assessee and involve common issue.2. These appeals pertain to assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and arise out of the common orders passed by the CWT (Appeals), Belgaum for these years dated 26-9-1991. wherein he has cancelled the re-assessments made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 and allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1987-88. According to the CWT (Appeals), the Assessing Officer had no fresh material enabling him to re-open the assessments. Even after re-opening, the assets brought to tax would have been exempt under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. Revenue is in appeal on the following common grounds, viz. : (1) The order of the CWT (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. (2) The CWT (Appeals) erred in cancelling the assessment on the ground that the Assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (2006)6SOT139(Bang.)
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore, dated 31-12-2003.We have heard both sides and perused the records. The assessee is the legal heir of Dr. K, Bhaskar Kini who, along with his two brothers, was the promoter/ director/ shareholder of various companies, which were manufacturing and trading in carbon dioxide gas. Such businesses of the companies were sold vide agreement dated 9-2-1998 to M/s. Praxair Carbon Dioxide Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. By separate agreement of even date, Dr. Bhaskar Kini and his brothers entered into non-competition agreement with M/s. Praxair Carbon Dioxide Pvt. Ltd. Non-competition agreement with three Kini Brothers was entered into for a total consideration of Rs. 3 crores. As per the agreement, Kini Brothers agreed not to engage in similar business in any capacity for a period of 10 years. Dr. Bhaskar Kini's share of consideration was Rs. 75 lakhs. This sum was disclosed in the return of income and exempt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1996)54TTJ(JP.)552
All these appeals and cross-appeals pertain to asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1988-89. All these appeals involve common issues and hence are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The assessee is a private limited company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Jodhana Investment & Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The holding company is a closely held company wherein the shares are held by H. H. Shri Gaj Singhji of Jodhpur and his family members. By virtue of the main objects as set out in the memorandum of association of the assessee-company, the main business of the company is that of dealing in real estate, purchasing and developing of land, acquire, take on lease, sub-lease, etc., any property and to invest and deal in lands, buildings, shares, debentures, etc. The company was incorporated on 31st March, 1971. In the same year the company had purchased the following properties for consideration as mentioned against each of them from H. H. Shri Gaj Singh : The assessee also constructed a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1996)56ITD90(JP.)
1. All these appeals and cross-appeals pertain to assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89. All these appeals involve common issues and hence are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The assessee is a Private Limited Company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Jodhan Investment & Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The holding company is a closely held company wherein the shares are held by H.H. Shri Gaj Singhji of Jodhpur and his family members. By virtue of the main objects as set out in the Memorandum of Association of the assessee company, the main business of the company is that of dealing in real estate, purchasing and developing of land, acquire, take on lease, sub-lease etc. any property and to invest and deal in lands, buildings, shares, debentures etc. The company was incorporated on 31st March, 1971. In the same year the company had purchased the following properties for consideration as mentioned against each of them from H.H. Shri Gaj Singh :-Jawahar Khana Rs. 48,000Saloo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1989)31ITD338(Mad.)
1. This is a departmental appeal relating to the assessment year 1983-84. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the centering sheets, machinery and tools employed by the assessee, who carries on business in construction work and who undertakes work contracts at different places, is entitled to investment allowance. For the accounting year in question centering sheets valuing Rs. 45,943 was introduced into the business of the assessee. The assessee was claiming Rs. 20,441 towards investment allowance on centering sheets, machinery and tools employed by him hi his business. The Income-tax Officer refused to allow anything towards investment allowance firstly on the ground that the assessee does not maintain any industrial undertaking.Secondly that the centering sheets cannot be called either plant or machinery and they are not entitled to investment allowance. Thirdly the Income-tax Officer states in his assessment order that Section 32A(2) does not refer to construction wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1993)47ITD349(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal arising out of an assessment made for surtax for the assessment year 1983-84. In response to statutory notice issued, the assessee-company filed return showing chargeable profit of Rs. 10,78,730. To arrive at the chargeable profit, for levy of surtax, the Surtax Officer deducted from the income-tax payable on the total income determined a sum of Rs. 1,88,929 which represented the tax deducted from the dividends declared to be distributed to the shareholders. The view of the Assessing Officer was that under Rule 2(i)(b) of the First Schedule, the amount of income-tax if any payable on the distribution of dividends should be reduced from the total income arrived at after making adjustments as provided for in Rule 1. It was the interpretation placed upon this Sub-rule (ii)(b) by the Surtax Officer and approved of by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) that is now the subject matter of appeal before us.2. For income-tax purposes, the income assessed was Rs. 1.30 crores...
Tag this Judgment!