Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2004)89TTJ(Chd.)439
By this order we shall dispose of this appeal of the assessee filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala, for the assessment year 1995-96.The first issue raised in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the action of the assessing officer in disallowing deduction under section 80-L The relevant grounds of appeal relating to this issue are at SI. Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and read as under : 1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in rejecting the claim of deduction under section 80-1 of Income Tax Act, 1961, of the appellant as a whole.2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the learned assessing officer's action though on different ground/basis of not accepting the expansion of the existing manufacturing tractor unit as a new industrial undertaking and thereby rejecting the claim of deduction under section 80-I of Income Tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Chd.)94
1. We find it convenient to dispose of the above four appeals by a consolidated order since they relate to the same assessee and involve certain common issues.2. ITA No. 379/Chd/2004 is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 27th Feb., 2004 pertaining to the asst. yr.1998-99. In this appeal the, assessee has preferred four grounds of appeal which we shall deal in seriatim. The brief background is that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture and sale of food and health care products. For the assessment year under consideration, the appellant filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 91,84,98,160, against which assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 1,05,53,211 (sic) after making various additions/disallowances to the returned income, which have been partly deleted by the CIT(A), against which the assessee is presently in appeal before us.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2000)242ITR1(Chd.)
1. This is a batch of two appeals by the revenue, in respect of same assessee, directed against the orders passed by the CIT(A), Patiala, dated 2-4-1990 for assessment year 1983-84 and dated 20-4-1990 for assessment year 1984-85, vide which he deleted the additions of Rs. 45,342 and Rs. 68,221 respectively for the two years under consideration, made by the Assessing Officer on account of tax liability received from Central Mechanical Engg. Research Institute, Durgapur, hereinafter referred to as CMERI.2. Precisely, the facts are like this. The assessee was employed with CMERI, Durgapur from 1965-70. During this period, he researched on tractor technology and developed a novel hydraulic system for agricultural tractor. The rights of the invention were patented and assigned by the assessee to his employer, the CMERI, in August, 1970.Only after such assignment did CMERI become the exclusive owner of the rights under Patent numbers. These patents were thereafter further assigned by CMERI ...
Tag this Judgment!