Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Ahd.)879
1. Of these three appeals, first two appeals are cross-appeals one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) dt. 25th Jan., 2003 for the block period 1st April, 1989 to 20th Jan., 2000 and the third appeal is by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dt. 24th Nov., 2004 for asst. yr. 2001-02.ITA No. 429/Ahd/2003 for block period 1st April, 1989 to 20th Jan., 2000 (assessee's appeal): 1. The assessment made under Section 158BC r/w Section 158BD dt. 28th Feb., 2002 is ab initio void, illegal and invalid. It is therefore prayed that the same be cancelled. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) considering that the assessment proceedings being initiated on the basis of vague notice under Section 158BC and that the notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) having not been issued within prescribed time under the law, ought to have held the assessment as invalid and therefore ought to have cancelled the same. 3. The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Ahd.)818
1. Both these appeals by the assessee are against the order of the CIT(A), Baroda, dt. 14th Aug., 2003 and 22nd Feb., 2005, respectively.2. The grounds taken therein are quite argumentative, but at the time of hearing, the parties came to an agreement that the issues involved in these two appeals of the assessee are as under: (i) The first issue relates to the assessee's claim of deduction of an expenditure of Rs. 6 crores claimed to have been paid, as non-compete fees to M/s VBC Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "VBC") and its founder member, Mr. M.V.V.S. Murthy, after having purchased VBC's plant for manufacturing nitric acid and ammonium nitrate situated at Ponnada Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. (ii) The second issue relates to the consideration of delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF as not deductible under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. (iii) The third issue relates to disallowance of assessee's claim of deduction of the amounts paid on account of emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2004)90TTJ(Ahd.)1024
These are cross-appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 27-6-2004. Since facts and issues involved are common, these appeals have been heard and are being disposed of by a common order.The cross-appeals relate to the block assessment made by the assessing officer for the block period comprising of assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000, and further current period 1-4-1999 to 29-6-1999. At the outset, relevant facts having a bearing on the points in issue may be briefly set out. Search operations were conducted by the Income Tax authorities at the residential premises of Dr. Manjit Singh and Smt.Pammy Manjit Singh on 29-6-1999. Smt. Pammy Manjit Singh is trustee of the assessee-trust and is also principal of primary section of the school. Her husband, Dr. Manjit Singh, is administrator and principal of secondary and higher secondary sections of the school run by the trust at Piplod, Surat, Pursuant to searches carried out a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2004)88ITD228(Ahd.)
1. These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessees are against the orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) both dated 27-9-1995 for the assessment year 1992-93. Since there is a common dispute, these appeals and cross objections are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Two assessments have been made in the hands of Kachradas Patel Specific Family Trust and Nirma Specific Family Trust. Two sums of Rs. 20,29,503 and Rs. 34,34,527 respectively were received by these two trusts as a refund of custom duty. Two proprietary concerns M/s. Noble Industries and M/s. Navbharat Industries purchased certain goods through Gujarat Detergent Manufacturing Association (GDMA for short) and paid certain customs duty on those purchases. The amounts were claimed and allowed as deduction in the earlier years in the assessments of erstwhile trusts K. Kachradas Patel Specific Trust and Nirma Specific Family Trust. These trusts were dissolved on 20-12-19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(Ahd.)904
1. All these concerns and persons belong to a group known as "N K Group". The proceedings of search were conducted in this case on 24th Feb., 1999. The main grounds raised in all these appeals involve consideration of common and connected points. Hence all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. We will first deal with the appeal in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. being IT(SS)A No. 15/Ahd/2002. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention that block assessment is void ab initio since the notice issued under Section 158BC does not mention the status of the assessee and does not mention correct block period and therefore, the notice issued is invalid. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the purchases made from certain suppliers amounting to Rs. 4.76 crores, for asst. yr. 1998-99 and Rs. 7.23 crores for asst. yr. 1999-2000 amounting in all to Rs. 11.99 cror...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1999)69ITD9(Ahd.)
1. These are two appeals preferred by the assessee relating to asst.yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 against the separate orders of the CIT(A) I, Baroda, dt. 19th February, 1990, for asst. yr. 1982-83 and 28th February, 1990, for asst. yr. 1983-84.2. While hearing these two appeals, the Division Bench, comprising of S/Shri B. M. Kothari and Jordan Kachchap, felt that in view of the conflicting decision in the matter of granting investment allowance, additional depreciation and extra shift allowance in cases where the actual cost of plant and machinery goes on increasing on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rates vis-a-vis the Indian rupee value, especially when the plant and machinery were purchased from a foreign country in foreign currency on instalment basis and when the Indian party paying the instalments is obliged to pay the instalments in foreign currency to the foreign party, this is a fit case to be considered by a special Bench consisting of three Members of the Tribunal. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dt. 9th Dec., 1994 passed by CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad, deciding the appeal of the assessee relating to asst. yr. 1990-91.2. The first ground of this appeal of the assessee relates to addition of Rs. 1,58,568 on account of being uncollected fees by the assessee company from the students, made by Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A) in the following facts and circumstances.3. The assessee, Noble Institute Private Ltd. is like many other coaching institutes being run in the Ahmedabad City and other towns for imparting coaching to students after their school times. The assessee company is running coaching classes for students of class X to XII for different subjects relating to Science, Mathematics etc. It appears from the record that the assessee was running as many as 5 branches in the previous year concerning to asst. yr. 1990-91 in which as stated by the learned counsel for assessee, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1996)58ITD251(Ahd.)
Per Shri Phool Singh, Judicial Member - This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 9-12-1994 passed by CIT (A)-III, Ahmedabad, deciding the appeal of the assessee relating to assessment year 1990-91.2. The first ground of this appeal of the assessee related to addition of Rs. 1,58,568 on account of being uncollected fees by the assessee company from the students, made by Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) and confirmed by the CIT (A) in the following facts and circumstances.3. The assessee, Noble Institute Private Ltd. is like many other coaching institutes being run in the Ahmedabad City and other towns for imparting coaching to students after their school times. The assessee company is running coaching classes for students of class X to XII for different subjects relating to Science, Mathematics etc. It appears from the record that the assessee was running as many as 5 branches in the previous year concerning to assessment year 1990...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1992)43ITD691(Ahd.)
1. There are a number of grounds in-this appeal but the ground regarding which arguments were made most extensively is an additional ground. It is an important ground. If it is decided in favour of the assessee it would not be necessary to decide the other grounds. That ground is that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer is barred by limitation. It arises in this way.2. The assessment order has been passed on 24-9-1984 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B. The assessee had filed objections to the draft assessment order. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) had passed an order under Section 125A(1) conferring concurrent jurisdiction over this case on the IAC from 1-11-1978. The assessee's contention is that since this concurrent jurisdiction had been conferred, the provisions of section 144B would not be applicable by virtue of sub-Section (7) thereof so that the extension of limitation period available under Section 153, Explanation 1 (iv) was not available and that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1993)46TTJ(Ahd.)1
There are a number of grounds in this appeal but the ground regarding which arguments were made most extensively is an additional ground. It is an important ground. If it is decided in favour of the assessee it would not be necessary to decide the other grounds. That ground is that the order passed by the ITO is barred by limitation. It arises in this way.2. The assessment order has been passed on 24th Sept., 1984 under S.143(3) r/w S. 144B. The assessee had filed objections to the draft assessment order. The CIT (Central) had passed an order under S.125A(1) conferring concurrent jurisdiction over this case on the IAC from 1st Nov., 1978. The assessees contention is that since this concurrent jurisdiction had been conferred the provisions of S. 144B would not be applicable by virtue of sub-s. (7) thereof so that the extension of limitation period available under S. 153, Expln. 1(iv) was not available and that therefore, the normal period of limitation was applicable. Since, the assess...
Tag this Judgment!