Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This appeal u/s.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.5684/AHD/1994 and 5957/AHD/1994 whereby, both the appeals were partly allowed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed the original return of income on 28.12.1990 declaring total income at Rs.1,80,72,380/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 30.12.1991 declaring total income at Rs.1,89,22,173/-. The returns were processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act and Notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessment scrutiny was undertaken and ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 30.03.1993. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, appeal was preferred before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 10.10.1994. Against the order of CIT(A), both the assessee as well as Revenue filed appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This Tax Appeal u/s. 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the order dated 23.12.2005, passed in ITA No.1494/Ahd/2000 for the Assessment Year 1990-91, whereby, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, sustaining the order passed by the CIT(A). 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee company is a private limited company, engaged in running a hotel, restaurant and catering services. While finalizing the assessment u/s.143(3), the Assessing Officer has allowed depreciation @ 20% on swimming pool instead of 33.33 as claimed by the assessee. The assessee claimed depreciation on swimming pool @ 33.33% treating it as plant and machinery. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the A.O., the assessee has preferred appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal, allowing depreciation @ 33.33% on swimming pool, treating it as plant and machinery. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred appeal before ITAT vide ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this reference, the Tribunal as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.08.1996 in Civil Appeal No.10652 of 1996, arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.12022 of 1991 moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot has directed the Tribunal to raise and refer the following question said to be questions of law to the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for its esteemed opinion: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. (2) Whether, the appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that 'Notification No.SRO/992 dated 22.12.1950 of the old Act, 1922 was not withdrawn and, therefore, it provided a good basis to the Co-operative Society to seek exemption of its income from business." 2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the assessee is a cooperative society and was assessed by the Income-tax Officer in the status of A.O.P. The as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.8.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot in ITA No. 454/Rjt/2013 - approval u/s. 80G(5). 2. The facts of the present case are that the assessee-Trust had made an application, in form No. 10G for approval u/s. 80G(5), which was received by the appellant on 17.4.2013. The form submitted by the assessee-Trust is also accompanied with the zerox copy of the trust deed and registration certificate dated 12.1.2012. The main objects of the trust as per the trust deed are educational activities. In order to verify the application, the trust was asked to explain as to how its activities are in accordance with its objects prescribed in the Memorandum of Association as well as to produce books of account, relevant vouchers, donation book and minutes book in original on 3.10.2013. In response to the same, the assessee-trust produced the details. It was submitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 20.08.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'A' Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Income Tax Appeal No. 3707/Ahd/2003 for the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee has preferred the present tax appeal. 1.1 The following substantial question of law was raised while admitting the appeal: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income - Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that interest was rightly charged under Section 234B(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that no interest had been levied under Section 234B(1) of the Act at the time of framing regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act?" 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in industrial gases. The assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year in question after having set off of brought f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
KS Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.9.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' in ITA No. 856/Ahd/94 for AY 1990-91. 2. While admitting this appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, conclusion reached by the Tribunal is contrary to the facts and evidence, and whether the finding recorded is perverse or not ?" 3. The facts of the present case are that the return of income is fled on 13.8.1991 declaring a loss of Rs. 16,546/-. Copies of audited accounts, balance-sheet and tax audit report under sec. 44 AB have been filed. After considering the material on record, the AO has passed the assessment order. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Divatia appearing for the appellant has contended that while passing the assessment order, the AO has observed in para-3 as under: "3. Gross Profit: It is seen that the assessee had disclosed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as ITAT) dated 30.03.2005 in ITA Nos. 3745/Ahd/2004, 3746/Ahd/2004 and 3747/Ahd/2004 for the Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals. 2. These appeals were admitted on 07.09.2006 for consideration of the following substantial question of law: "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that cinecasting/distribution of movies would be outside the purview of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requiring tax deduction at source?" 3. The assessee firm which runs a multiplex theatre had an agreement with the distributor of certain movies for exhibiting films in the theatre owned by it. The distributor was to get part of the amount collected by the respondent by way of sale of tickets for these movies. The Assessing Officer observed that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.J. Thaker, J. 1. The Tax Appeal No.676 of 2006 u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No.1892/Ahd/2001. 2. The Tax Appeal No.677 of 2001 u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No.88/Ahd/2001. 3. The facts of both the appeals are identical Therefore, both these appeals are taken up for hearing and decided together as common questions of law are raised. The respondent though served, has chosen not to appear. 4. As the question of law as well as the facts of both these appeals are same, we discuss facts as emerging in Tax Appeal No.676 of 2006. The assessee filed its return on 31.07.1998, declaring total income of Rs.54,15,971/- for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The assessments were taken under scrutiny and the Assessment Officer vide its order, determined the total income of ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 23.01.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [for short "the Tribunal"] in ITA No. 6030/Ahd/1994, whereby the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The short facts of this case are that on 13.10.1969, the respondent-assessee had purchased one immovable property in the form of a godown at Bombay for an amount of Rs.1,22,767/-. Depreciation on this property was claimed upto Assessment Year 1984-85. Thereafter, with effect from Assessment Year 1985-86 onwards the assessee neither claimed any depreciation nor any such claim was allowed by the revenue in respect of the said property. The contention of the assessee was that the said property had not been used for the purpose of business with effect from Assessment Year 1985-86 and therefore, the provisions of Section 50 would not be applicable since the property was not included in the block of assets. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant-revenue, challenging the order of the learned ITAT (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Dated 22.11.2013, rendered in ITA No. 745/Ahd/2013, whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a firm, engaged in the business of export of silk. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 on 31.12.2004 showing total loss at Rs.16,760/-. The case of the assessee came to be selected for scrutiny and its total income came to be assessed at Rs.57,85,560/-. Being aggrieved thereby, the assessee approached the CIT(A), which allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Hence, the Revenue carried the matter before the Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal, raising the following questions for our consideration; "[A] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in upholdin...
Tag this Judgment!