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 : (2007)108TTJ(Asr.)1
1. These cross-appeals-one by the assessee and another by the Revenue, have been filed against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst. yr. 1990-91. Since the issues involved are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First, we take up assessee appeal in ITA No. 429/2000. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 relate to sustaining the action of the AO for reopening the assessment under Section 147 which go to the very root of reassessment completed by the AO. These grounds are extracted as under: 1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has gravely erred in upholding the reopening under Section 147 as valid, which is bad in law and on facts and based on insufficient and inadequate material. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has gravely erred in holding that page No. 53 of Annex. A-9 of the seizure during search was the balance sheet of the business of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Asr.)890
1. This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the block assessment order of the Asstt. CIT, Cir. 1(1), Jalandhar, for the block period from 1st April, 1985 to 10th Oct., 1995.2. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee vide his letter dt. 24th Feb., 2005 requested for admission of the following additional ground of appeal: 1. That the learned AO has erred in making the following additions since no evidence has been found during the course of search: (a) Addition on account of foreign remittance in the name of self and wife. (b) The other additions were also not liable to be made since no evidence has been found during the course of search and treatment of same as undisclosed income on the basis of presumption is uncalled for.3. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature for which all relevant facts are already on record. The case does not warrant any further i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Asr.)427
1. This appeal of the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee have been filed against the order of CIT(A), Jalandhar for the asst. yr.2002-03. Since the issues raised in the appeal filed by the. Revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are interrelated and arise from the same order of the CIT(A), these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First, we take up cross-objections filed by the assessee, where the following grounds have been taken: 1. That the order of the CIT(A) is well reasoned on the law and facts of the case. 2. That even on merits the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IB is wrongly made by the AO. The AO has gravely erred in deducting the amount of DEPB including premium on sale of DEPB from profit and gains of business of the undertaking. 3. That the grounds of Appeal No. 3 does not arise from the order of the learned CIT(A). 4. That the deduction under Section 80-IB and Section 80HHC ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhatinda, for the assessment year 1997-98.2. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the following additional ground was raised : That the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Faridkot was not legally competent to refer the matter to the departmental Valuation Officer under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act for determination of cost of construction since there is no provision in the Income Tax Act which empowers him to make such reference.It was submitted before the Bench that the additional ground being purely legal in nature for which the relevant facts were on record, the same may be admitted. The assessee also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v.CIT .3. The learned departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the admission of the additional ground.4. We have heard both the parties and considered the rival conte...
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 : (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 : (2007)104ITD316(Asr.)
1. This order shall dispose of the M.A. filed by Shri Varinder Mehta, Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Range-I, Jammu in I.T.A. No.253(ASR)/2003 for the assessment year 1999-2000. It is staled in the M.A. that the appellate order dated 29-8-2005 has been served on 14-9-2005 and that the department has filed the additional grounds vide letter dated 2-6-2004 and the said additional ground of appeal filed by the department have not been taken while deciding the case.2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the findings in the appellate order dated 29-8-2005 and also perused the record of the Tribunal.3. The learned D.R. submitted that the additional ground filed by the Addl. C.I.T., Range I, Jammu in the departmental appeal in I.T.A. No.253(ASR)/2003 was not taken up and decided by the Tribunal while deciding the departmental appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000 vide order dated 29-8-2005 and as such there appears a mistake apparent on r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Asr.)706
1. These are eight department's appeals for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. The facts being common in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this composite order.2. The department has raised the following ground of appeal No. 1 in all these eases: The learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee exemption under Section 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order dated 14-3-2007 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer, which is mandatory as per provisions of Section 250(1) and 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, thus violating the Principles of natural justice and therefore the order of CIT(A) deserves to be declared as null and void. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and case of Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 225 ITR 235 (SC) in right perspective in accordance with law and thereby has er...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Asr.)728
1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax, Jammu (In short, "CIT") passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (In short, "the Act") for the asst. yr.2002-03. 1. The CIT is unjustified in cancelling the orders to the extent of issue of disallowance to be made under Section 14A of the IT Act, 1961 and also on the issue of non-availability of exemption under Section 10(23G) of the IT Act, 1961 earlier allowed by the AO rightly and correctly under Section 143(3) read with the order under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT is not correct to state that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue to the extent of above. The directions given by the CIT to AO to frame the assessment afresh on these issues is unjustified, bad in law and against the facts of the case. It is prayed that the order of CIT passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 may please be cancelled.3. The facts of the case are...
Tag this Judgment!