Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Asr.)290
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jammu, with headquarters at Amritsar dt. 29th May, 1998 for the asst. yr. 1990-91.3. The facts as taken from the record are that the assessee company filed its return of income 31st Dec., 1990 declaring loss at Rs. 12,70,080. The return was duly accompanied by the copies of trading accounts, balance sheet, etc., which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) vide intimation dt. 27th March, 1991. At the (time) of processing, prima facie adjustment to the tune of Rs. 6,791 on account of donation and claim of depreciation on land and land development was made. Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 was issued after recording the reasons for reopening of the case and the said notice on 8th April, 1992. In response to this notice, the assessee filed return of income.This loss was duly processed at Rs. 12,63,290 and the prima facie adjustments made at the time of original processing were again made and the loss was rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)98ITD227(Asr.)
1. Hon'ble President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has constituted a Special Bench Under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act and referred the following questions:- (i)Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the re-assessment proceedings intimated by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) are valid? (ii)If answer to question No. 1 above is in affirmative, as to whether the cash credits introduced by the assessee (s) are genuine? 2. Learned representatives of both the parties have stated that basic facts in all these cases are common. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of all the appeals by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. We have heard learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the observation of the authorities below and examined the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessees in IT A Nos.378/95, 377/95, 380/95 and 389/95 have move...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)98ITD0227S(Asr.)
Hon'ble President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has constituted a Special Bench under section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act and referred the following questions:- "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the oase, the re-assessment proceedings intimated by the assessing officer and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are valid? (ii) If answer to question No. 1 above is in affirmative, as to whether the cash credits introduced by the assessee(s) are genuine?" Learned representatives of both the parties have stated that basic facts in all these cases are common. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of all the appeals by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.We have heard learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the observation of the authorities below and examined the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessees in ITA Nos.378/95, 377/95,380...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Asr.)1101
These are two appeals - one filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), Ludhiana, dated 10.03.2003 for the assessment year 1988-89 and another filed by the assessee against order dated 20^th March, 2003 CIT(A), Jammu with Hqrs. at Amritsar for the assessment year 1989-90.Since the issues in these appeals are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. In the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 1988-89 the following two effective grounds of appeal have been taken : " 1 That the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ludhiana has erred in quashing the re-assessment proceedings initiated vide notice Under Section 148 dated 24.3-1999 on the ground that earlier re-assessment proceedings were still pending as a result of order of Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar dated 20.3.1998 which was restored to the file of the A.O. on a limited issue regarding admissibility of deductions Under Section 32AB & 80HHC. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)97ITD425(Asr.)
These are two appeals one filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A), Ludhiana, dated 10-3-2003 for the assessment year 1988-89 and another filed by the assessee against order dated 20-3-2003 of CIT(A), Jammu, with headquarters at Amritsar for the assessment year 1989-90.Since the issues in these appeals are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.In the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 1988-89, the following two effective grounds of appeal have been taken : "1. That the learned CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana, has erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice under section 148, dated 24-3-1999 on the ground that earlier reassessment proceedings were still pending as a result of order of Hon'ble Tribunal Amritsar, dt.20-3-1998 which was restored to the file of the assessing officer on a limited issue regarding admissibility of deductions under sections 32AB and 80HHC.2. That t...
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!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Asr.)941
1. This is bunch of five appeals, all filed by the assesses against five orders of CWT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst. yrs. 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.2. The first issue raised in all these appeals is that CWT(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 WT Act, 1957. Identical facts of the case are that the assessee owned agricultural land situated within the 'municipal limits' of Jalandhar.The AO 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 WT Act, 1957 (in short "Act"). According to him, the said land was 'urban-land' within the meaning o...
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)97TTJ(Asr.)28
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jammu, headquarters at Amritsar, dated 9-9-2004, for the assessment year 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 Income Tax 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 assessing officer by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. ITO & Ors. (2000) 245 ITR 538 (SC) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT v. P.Devasahayam (1998) 144 CTR (Mad) 313. Both these cases have wrongly been applied on the appellant as he is not a trader in manufacturer.The appellant is a manufacturing concern exclusive...
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!