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 : (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 : (2002)83ITD179(Asr.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 31st March, 1994, relating to asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The only grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-1.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company and during the year under consideration was carrying on the profession of a nursing home which provided medical treatment to patients with all kinds of eye problems. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-1 to the extent of Rs. 12,75,222. In the income-tax audit report annexed to income-tax return, it was mentioned that the assessee-company was an industrial undertaking. The AO asked the assessee to substantiate its claim under Section 80-1. In response to that the assessee submitted as under : "That the assessee has made a claim for allowance of deduction under Section 80-1. The assessee-company gets lenses manufactured from other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2002)76TTJ(Asr.)234
These two miscellaneous applications arising out of common order of the Tribunal dated 23-12-1997, in ITA Nos. 72 & 73/Asr/1991 for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, respectively, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.First, we will take up M.A. No. 15/Asr/1998. In this miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee has prayed that mistakes apparent from the record may kindly be rectified. The contents of this application are reproduced hereunder : 2. That in the above appeal, the appellant had disputed the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,672, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.3. That the penalty was imposed as a result of addition made on account of certain entries found in a notice book seized during the search operation from the residential premises of Shri Bhagwan Dass, a partner of the appellant-firm. The addition had been made and the penalty had been impose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
1. These two miscellaneous applications arising out of common order of the Tribunal dt. 23rd Dec., 1997, in ITA Nos. 72 & 73/Asr/1991 for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87, respectively, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.2. First, we will take up M.A. No. 15/Asr/1998. In this miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee has prayed that mistakes apparent from the record may kindly be rectified.The contents of this application are reproduced hereunder : 1. That the above appeal was last heard on 18th Feb., 1997, after ten months. 2. That in the above appeal, the appellant had disputed the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,672, under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 3. That the penalty was imposed as a result of addition made on account of certain entries found in a notice book seized during the search operation from the residential premises of Sh. Bhagwan Dass, a partner, of the appellant...
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 : (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 : (2004)91TTJ(Asr.)1140
The appellant has filed appeals against the or-der passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dt. 26-6-1998, and taken following grounds in appeals : "1 That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in liminie for assessment year 1985-86 on the plea that the appeal was invalid although Sh. Y.P. Duggal had signed the appeal as power of attorney holder of his son, Sh, Anil Duggal, the, appellant (who was in America at the time of filing of appeal and who, had given general power of attorney to Sh. Yash Pal Duggal, his father, before leaving India) filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) against the additions/disallowances made in the assessment under section 144 of Income Tax Act, dated 27-3-1997, where; during hearings, detailed explanations covering all aspects of the case were duly filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal in a grossly...
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 : (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!