Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian boilers amendment act 2007 section 11 amendment of section 11 Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat amritsar Page 2 of about 21 results (0.159 seconds)

Feb 14 2005 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Bir Engg. Works [Alongwith Misc.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2005)94ITD164(Asr.)

1. In exercise of the powers vested under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred as the Act), the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ITAT) has constituted this Special Bench to decide the following question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal committed a mistake under Section 254(2) of the IT Act in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue in the light of circulars of the Board ?" Before proceeding to answer this question, the background and events leading to present reference need to be mentioned.2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short CBDT) is the supreme body of IT Department responsible for formulation and implementation of Government policy and administration of Direct Taxes Laws. As per provisions of Section 119 of the Act, the CBDT is vested with the powers of issuing directions/instructions to the field officers. With a view to reducing the pendency of appeals in the Tribunal, High Court and Sup...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2008 (TRI)

Vikram Chadha Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Asr.)123

1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the CIT(A), Jammu with Headquarters at Amritsar for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The only effective issue raised in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) by ignoring the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Munish Iron Store (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 159 : (2003) 263 1TR 484 (P&H) and the decision of Tribunal (SMC), Amritsar Bench, in the case of Shri Joginder Pal, Prop. M/s New Radha Industries v. ITO. Ward-1, Hoshiarpur, for the asst. yr. 1993-94 (a copy of order placed at pp. 23 to 28 of the paper book). The facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return declaring therein income of Rs. 8,83,984 on 3rd July, 2001, which was processed under Section 143(1). In the return the assessee had included the value of Rs. 5,68,000 of the Opel Corsa car won by him in the c...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 1984 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. J.M.P. Enterprises

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (1993)46ITD104(Asr.)

1. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 1975-76, and the cross-objection relating thereto are conveniently considered together and disposed of by a common order.2. The major objection of the Revenue through its first ground is about the cost of construction of a cinema building by the assessee-firm and the addition made on account of unexplained investment. The Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 6,56,186, which represented the difference between the cost of construction as per the Departmental Valuation Officer of Rs. 23,76,505 and the cost of construction as per the assessee's books of Rs. 17,20,320. It was pointed out from para 8 of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the Departmental Valuation Officer made valuation five times and each time the cost of construction worked out was different. The first assessment which was made by the Income-tax Officer by order dated March 28, 1979, was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2003 (TRI)

B. Karamchand Piarelal Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2004)91ITD398(Asr.)

1. This is a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee in relation to the Tribunal's order, dt. 9th Oct., 1992 in ITA No.713/Asr/1987 relating to asst. yr. 1978-79 in the case of the assessee.2. In the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, it is alleged that the following mistakes are apparent from record, which require rectification under Section 254(2) : "(i) In para 7, it is mentioned as an argument of the counsel of the assessee that the Departmental authorities had wrongly held that Shri P.L. Sharma, accountant, was authorised by the assessee to represent the assessee in all proceedings before the IT authorities and as such he could have agreed to any addition. No such argument had been raised by the counsel as per the affidavit enclosed. (ii) In para 10, the Tribunal has been influenced by the fact that though the assessee was having extensive business, which was apparent from the quantum of sales, yet it had never bothered to file the return of income in the no...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2005 (TRI)

Tara Singh Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)97ITD482(Asr.)

This is bunch of five appeals, all filed by the assessee against five orders of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (A), Jalandhar, for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Since the issues raised in all these appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.The first issue raised in all these appeals is that Commissioner of Wealth Tax (A) had gravely erred in not appreciating that the land in question owned by the assessee was agricultural and was, therefore, not included within the definition of 'asset' as defined under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Identical facts of the case are that the assessee owned agricultural land situated within the 'municipal limits' of Jalandhar. The assessing officer observed that the value of such land was to be included in the asset owned by the assessee within the meaning of clause (ea) of section 2 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (herein...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1998 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Charitable

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (1999)70ITD487(Asr.)

1. The revenue has filed appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) vide A.No. 110/ASR/97-98 dated 18-8-1997 and taken following grounds in appeal : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee hospital deserves the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it has failed to fulfil its main object of grant of medical help to the poors. 2. The appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal if heard or finally disposed of. 3. It is prayed that the order of the Assessing Officer be restored and that of the ld. CIT(A) be vacated." 2. The learned D.R. has relied on the order passed by the Assessing Officer.3. The assessee has filed return of income along with return of income, the assessee has worked out the excess expenditure over income amounting to Rs. 21,19,608. The Assessing Officer started assessment proceedings and during the assessment proceedings, examined ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 1998 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Charitable

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2000)70ITD481(Asr.)

The revenue has filed appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide A.No. 110/ASR/97-98 dated 18-8-1997 and taken following grounds in appeal : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee hospital deserves the benefit ol exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it has failed to fulfil its main object of grant of medical help to the poors.The appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal if heard or finally disposed of.It is prayed that the order of the assessing officer be restored arid that of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) be vacated." Thelearned Department Representative has refledon the order passed by the assessing officer.The assessee has filed return of income along with return of income, the assessee has worked out the excess expenditure over income amounting to Rs. 21,19,608. The assessing officer started assessment proceedi...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2001 (TRI)

Beat All Sports Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2001)77ITD11(Asr.)

1. This second appeal is directed against the order dated 13-11-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Income-lax (Appeals), Jalandhar, hereinafter referred as the CIT(A), under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred as the Act, in respect of assessment year 1981-82.2. Primarily the grievance is in ground Nos. 1 and 2 and the contention is that the learned CIT(A) erred in reducing the deduction granted by the Assessing Officer under section 35B of the Act amounting to Rs. 44,004 to Rs. 28,169 as he was not legally competent to pass an order under section 154 of the Act to revise the order of the ITO and thereby withdrawing deduction given by the Assessing Officer, which was and could not be subject-matter of first appeal. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 16-12-1983 in which the assessee was allowed deduction under section 35B of the Act amounting to Rs. 44,004. There being other contested additions, in the assessment, and the CIT(A) passe...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2006 (TRI)

Asstt. Cit Vs. Ranjit Singh Ghuman

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

1. The appeal of the revenue has been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, in the block assessment relating to the block period ending on 8-2-2000 and the other appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, dated 11-12-2003 passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the same period of the block assessment completed by the I assessing officer. Since the issues raised in both the appeals arise from the same block assessment completed by the assessing officer and appeals decided - by the Commissioner (Appeals), both were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First, we take up appeal filed by the revenue, where following two grounds of appeal have been taken: l. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,47,070 made on account of. interest paid by the ass...

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2000 (TRI)

Mukand Singh Sodhi Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2001)78ITD266(Asr.)

1. The assessee has filed appeals against the consolidated order passed by the CIT(A) in A. No. C1T(A)/IT/ BTI/458 to 463/92-93 dated 11-12-1992 for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1984-85 and taken following common grounds in appeals in all the assessment years : "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the proceedings were initiated under section 147(a) and not 147(b) and further that the return was not filed voluntarily under section 139. He failed to realise that it was humanly not possible for the appellant to file a return under section 139 when the interest income was received in the years 1987 and 1988. The assessment made is clearly barred by limitation. 2. Without prejudice to above, it is further submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding the status of the appellant as HUF (Specified). He took cognizance of a statement which was procured by the Income-tax Officer after the conclusio...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //