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!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!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!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!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!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!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2004)85TTJ(Asr.)218
1. These two appeals by the assessee emanate from the common order passed by the CIT(A) on 14th July, 1995, in relation to asst. yrs.1989-90 and 1990-91. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The first ground of the assessee's appeal deals with the computation of deduction under Section 32AB. The facts apropos of this issue are that the AO, in the course of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), noted that the net profit declared by the assessee included the following incomes :(i) Income from sale of fixed assets Rs. 4,50,802(ii) Interest earned Rs. 5,17,611(iii) Dividend income Rs. 2,56,650(iv) Rent received Rs. 69,600 After discussing nature of the abovereferred items, it was opined that the profit on sale of fixed assets was relatable to the eligible business. However, dividend income, interest income and rental income to the tune of Rs. 2,56,650, Rs. 3,68,1...
Tag this Judgment!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!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2007)104ITD152(Asr.)
1. This appeal by the assesses is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jammu, headquarters at Amritsar, dt. 9th Sept., 2004, for the asst. yr. 2001-02 on the following ground : "The CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction of Rs. 16,06,870 claimed under Section 80-IB of the IT Act on the alleged ground that the activity of the appellant of making bread is that of food processor and not that of manufacturers of food processor and not that of manufacturer of food. The CIT(A) is unjustified in confirming the action of AO by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. ITO and Ors. as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT v. P. Devasahayam. Both these cases have wrongly been applied on the appellant as he is not a trader in manufacturer. The appellant is a manufacturing concern exclusively deriving profits and gains from manufacturing of bread by transformi...
Tag this Judgment!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!