Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2006)100ITD29(Nag.)
1. The assessee has preferred these appeals against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.2. The various grounds raised in the memo of appeal are with regard to only one issue that the levy of penalty under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law.3. The brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee is a Government Company and is operating a Steel Plant at Bhilai known as Bhilai Steel Plant. The assessee-company has got two categories of workers namely Executives/Officers and Non-executives/Staff. The Revenue Authorities have held that the assessee-company at the time of making payment of gratuity to various employees has short deducted tax at source. The Revenue Authorities had passed the order under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 raising demand for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2002)76TTJ(Nag.)76
Out of these four appeals, two appeals preferred by the assessee being ITA Nos. 985 & 986/Nag/1996, are directed against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24-9-1996, and 9-9-1996, passed against the assessing officer's orders under sections 143(3) and 154/143(1)(a) respectively for assessment year 1994-95 whereas the other two appeals preferred by the revenue being ITA Nos. 38 & 39/Nag/2001 are directed against the learned Commissioner (Appeals)' common order, dated 20-11-2000, for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 against which the assessee has also filed its cross-objections being C.O. Nos. 15 & 16/Nag/2001. As all these appeals and cross-objections are inter-linked and involve a common issue, we find it convenient to dispose of the same by this common order.At the time of hearing before us the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed the cross-objections filed by the assessee being C.O.Nos. 15 & 16/Nag/2001. Accordingly, the same are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2002)82ITD296(Nag.)
1. Out of these four appeals, two appeals preferred by the assessee being ITA Nos. 985 & 986/Nag/1996, are directed against the orders of the learned CIT(A) dt. 24th Sept., 1996, and 9th Sept., 1996, passed against the AO's orders under Sections 143(3) and 154/143(1)(a) respectively for asst. yr. 1994-95 whereas the other two appeals preferred by the Revenue being ITA Nos. 38 & 39/Nag/2001 are directed against the learned CIT(A)' common order, dt. 20th Nov., 2000, for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 against which the assessee has also filed its cross-objections being C.O. Nos. 15 & 16/Nag/2001. As all these appeals and cross-objections are inter-linked and involve a common issue, we find it convenient to dispose of the same by this common order.2. At the time of hearing before us the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed the cross-objections filed by the assessee being C.O. Nos. 15 & 16/Nag/2001. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed.3. At the ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (1998)67ITD619(Nag.)
1. This appeal by the assessee pertains to the assessment year 1991-92.The only effective ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in not allowing deduction of expenses incurred by the assessee for earning income by way of incentive bonus/salary. According to the assessee he has incurred expenses for earning the above incentive bonus and claimed the same at 40% of the gross receipt as held by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year. The claim of the assessee is that 40% of the incentive bonus should have been allowed as deduction which the assessee actually incurred.2. For the assessment year 1991-92 the assessee filed the return on 14-8-91 showing income at Rs. 61,440. The assessee derives income from salary from LIC of India, Amravati Branch. Assessee has shown incentive bonus received from LIC as business income in his return. In the Salary Certificate issued by the LIC incentive bonus has been incl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2003)260ITR1(Nag.)
1. These appeals preferred by the assessee-company against the following orders of the learned CIT(A), Raipur involve common issues and we find it convenient to dispose of the same by a consolidated order : 2. Before we take up the various issues raised in these appeals for consideration and decision, it would be appropriate to narrate the facts of the case giving rise to these appeals. The assessee-company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of M/s Coal India Ltd. which is a Government of India undertaking. It is engaged in the business of extracting coal from the coal fields located, in M.P. It is regularly assessed to income-tax and its assessments for asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 were initially completed by the Dy. CIT, Special Range, Raipur under Section 143(3). Subsequently, the same were reopened by the AO for the reason recorded in writing and the reassessments under Section 147/143(3) were completed making substantial additions to the income returned by the assessee-company. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2002)77TTJ(Nag.)401
These appeals preferred by the assessee-company against the following orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur involve common issues and we find it convenient to dispose of the same by a consolidated order : Before we take up the various issues raised in these appeals for consideration and decision, it would be appropriate to narrate the facts of the case giving rise to these appeals. The assessee-company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of M/s. Coal India Ltd. which is a Government of India undertaking. It is engaged in the business of extracting coal from the coal fields located in M.P. It is regularly assessed to income-tax and its assessments for assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 were initially completed by the Deputy Commissioner, Special Range, Raipur under section 143(31) Subsequently, the same were reopened by the assessing officer for the reason recorded in writing and the reassessments under section 147/143(3) were completed making substantial additions to the inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : (2001)70TTJ(Nag.)704
There is a couplet of an Urdu poem of a renowned Indian poet "ghar ko aag lag gayee ghar ke chirag se" (The house is caught fire by its own lamp). Metaphorically meaning thereby that "loss is caused to a person by his own trusted people." These three appeals by the different assessees but partners in a firm called as M/s Bharat Hardware & Iron Stores, Nagpur, fit completely into the aforesaid Urdu couplet. There is a substantial loss of revenue to the government in the ministry of finance to the tune of nearly Rs. 5 lakhs in these three cases on account of which I would say, culpable misconduct by one of its own revenue assessing and collecting officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner, Special Range, Nagpur, and that too in "Raid" (search and seizure) cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961.The interesting facts revealing loss of substantial revenue to the Government of India by one of its own top ranking officer in these appeals require narration as under : The Assistant Director ...
Tag this Judgment!