Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (1986)19ITD712(Asr.)
1. There is a short but interesting point arising in this appeal for the assessment year 1982-83 filed by the assessee. The assessee had raised three contentions before the AAC by taking grounds of Appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Ground No. 2 related to the charging of interest under Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and ground No. 3 to the charging of another interest of Rs. 243, which, according to the order of the AAC, was interest charged under Section 216 of the Act.Ground No. 1 sought to challenge the action of the ITO in taking the determined share from the firm Northern Traders at Rs. 65,997 against the returned amount by the assessee of Rs. 54,997. The AAC has considered the ground relating to interest under Section 216 of Rs. 243 to be an appealable ground and decided it. He held the ground relating to charging of interest under Section 217 to be not appealable by holding that ground No. 1 merely contained an objection for the sake of objection and was taken in ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2004)91ITD385(Asr.)
1. These two cross-appeals--one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue relating to asst. yr. 1984-85 are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 1035/Asr/1989 is the appeal by the Revenue wherein the following grounds have been taken : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in directing not to reduce the subsidy from the actual cost of assets for computing depreciation and investment allowance. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be vacated on the above grounds of appeal and that of the ITO/DC be restored." 2.1 After hearing the parties, we are of the view that the appeal of the Revenue has to be allowed in view of the binding decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Jindal Bros.Rice Mills (1989) 179 JTR 470 (P&H). Accordingly, the AO is directed to reduce the subsidy received by the assessee from the actual cost of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Asr.)102
1. This is Department's appeal for the block period 1st April, 1987 to 24th June, 1997 against the order dt. 28th March, 2002 passed by the learned CIT(A), Jalandhar. The following grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 70,33,060 made on account of undisclosed income of the assessee by bringing to tax the deposits in the saving bank accounts of the four daughters of the assessee. 2. That on the facts and in. the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has further erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,23,118 on account of interest income during the block period on bank deposits of the four daughters of the assessee. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has again erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,43,756 on account of foreign remittance received by the assessee, his wife and four daughters. 4. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!