Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
1. On a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and Accountant Member, the President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question for my opinion as Third Member, which read as under: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the fact that the assessee has never disputed the correctness of number of shares remaining in closing stock, date-wise lot out of which the shares in closing stock were available as well as the purchase price of respective lot, should the issue relating to the valuation of closing stock of such shares be referred back to the Assessing Officer with the directions as contained in paragraph No. 6.3.6 of the order authored by the learned Accountant Member or the valuation of closing stock arrived at by the Assessing Officer be confirmed? 2. The facts of the case are that, the assessee valued shares of Motorol (India) Ltd. at Rs. 3,45,60,315/- for which there seems to be no basis and the Assessing Officer observed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)1113ITD539(Ahd.)
1. On a reference by the President, Tribunal the following questions are referred to the Special Bench for its decision and to dispose of the entire appeal: (A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the applicants are liable to deduct the tax at source under Section 194C of the FT Act from the payment made to Mukamdams and transporters by Zone Samiti? (B) Whether, the applicants are liable for deduction of tax under Section 194C of the IT Act, 1961 from the payments made as advances to its member farmers for purchase of sugarcane when no expenditure towards cutting, harvesting and transportation is debited in the books of the applicants? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ingredients of Section 194C of the IT Act, 1961 are attracted to make the applicants liable to deduct the tax at source from the payments made to Mukamdams and transporters who are member farmers of the Zone Samiti and who have no contract with the applicant? 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)113ITD133(Ahd.)
1. The President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has constituted this Special Bench to decide these two appeals-one quantum and the other concealment penalty and to resolve, in particular, the dispute between the parties with regard to the reassessment Under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by the Assessing Officer on the following issue of law: Whether the proviso to Section 147 has the effect of curtailing the limitation period for passing the order Under Section 147 as prescribed Under Section 153(2).2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of finance and investment. The original assessment order Under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year under consideration, was made on 10.2.1999, determining a total loss at Rs. 87,35,134/- allowing unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 86,14,332 and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 1,20,802 to be carried forward. The assessment was reopened and the Assessing Officer on entertai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)113ITD209(Ahd.)
1. Because of the cleavage of opinion between the Benches of Tribunal viz., Mumbai and Kolkata the President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has constituted this Special Bench for considering the following issue: Whether in view of the provisions of Section 80I A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of deduction Under Section 80IA of the Act has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even though they have been allowed set off against other income in earlier years.2. The decision of the Tribunal, Bombay Benches, in the case of M.Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT 105 TTJ 136 (Bom.) is in favour of the assessee and it held that unabsorbed depreciation of eligible project could not be set off against profit of eligible business for the purposes of deduction Under Section 80IA which unabsorbed depreciation stood already adjusted against profits of assessee from other bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Ahd.)415
1. These cross-appeals by the assessee and Revenue, are against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 27th Feb., 2003. The assessee filed its appeal taking the following grounds: 1(a) The CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] has grossly erred in holding that return of income filed by the appellant is non est and invalid having been filed beyond the statutory period of 45 days provided in Section 158BC. 1(e) The CIT(A) should have held from the aforesaid case law that even under Section 158BC, a duty is cast on the AO to serve a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and as the said provision is mandatory, non-compliance thereof by the AO vitiates the assessment order itself.2. The learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that in ground No. 1(e), the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) holding that as the return under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 (Act), filed by the assessee, was beyond forty-five days being the time-limi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Ahd.)421
1. These are two appeals by Revenue against two assessees for asst. yr.2004-05 against order of the CIT(A) dt. 15th Oct., 2007 for deleting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). As both appeals involve common disputes, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. (To dispose of these appeals, we take up facts as appearing in appeal No. 110/Ahd/2008 in the case of Smt. Babitaben Rameshbhai Patel.Assessee is stated to be illiterate and doing tailoring work. She has been declaring income from tailoring, agriculture and investment. She had also filed return on 5th May, 2004 declaring total income at Rs. 92,687 along with copies of receipts and payments account, capital account and balance sheet. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued to scrutinize return requiring assessee to furnish eight different details, but without anything about capital gain. On the first year (sic) on 14th Aug., 2006, assessee had disclosed sale of agricultural land for a sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Ahd.)689
1. These four Cross Objections have been filed by the Assessee directed against the common Order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Surat ["the CIT(A)" for short] dated 16/04/2007 for Assessment Year (AY) 2003-2004 to 2006-07. The following three common effective grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A)-I, Surat has erred in law and/or on facts in confirming that MICR Centre managed by SBI was providing Managerial / Technical Services as per Explanation (b) of Section 194J read with Explanation-2 to Section 9(1) of the Act. 1.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the MICR Centre of SBI was providing Managerial Services so that the appellant was liable to make TDS Under Section 194J of the Act. 2.1 Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that no TDS was required to make in respect of reimbursement of exps.2. The brief facts relating to these grounds are that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
1. These three appeals are by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-03.2. The only grievance raised by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee is against confirmation of the disallowance of loss of Rs. 226.74 crores claimed to be arising out of normal business transaction of issuing drafts in favour of four banks on instructions of Mr. Harshad Mehta on presentation of cheque of NHB in favour of the assessee bank during its normal business activity.3. The assessee State bank of Saurashtra (hereinafter referred to as 'SBS') is a public enterprise a wholly owned subsidiary of State Bank of India (SBI) and is engaged in the business of banking and Allied activities. The assessee has suffered loss of Rs. 226.74 crores during the year under consideration as a result of banking transactions undertaken solely in the regular course of carrying on its business of banking. A suit was filed by the National ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has objected to the Order of the CIT(Appeals)-XI, Ahmedabad dated 11/07/2002 for Assessment Year 1990-91, by way of following grounds: (i) The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Apapeal), Ahmedabad erred in law and on facts in directing the A.O. to allow carry forward of losses determined. (ii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad, erred in law and not acts in not appreciating that the loss determined was not allowed to be carried forward in view of the provisions of Section 139(3) of the Act r.w.s. 80 of the I.T. Act. (iii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad, further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the assessee has not removed the defects evenafter opportunity was given for the same by the A.O. Therefore, the so called original return was invalid and the revised return so filed was treated as original and since it was late the carry forward of loss was rightly disallowed by the A.O. (iv) The Ld. Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Ahd.)142
1. This is assessee's appeal against order of CIT(A) dt. 19th July, 2007. Grounds raised are as under.2. Ground No. 6 is not pressed. In remaining grounds raised only one issue i.e., challenging levy of penalty Under Section 27ID of Rs. 5 lakhs (remains) for adjudication.3. Brief facts are--during the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that assessee had violated provisions of Section 269SS of the IT Act, inasmuch as, deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs were accepted in cash. Show cause notice Under Section 27ID was issued, assessee replied that funds were urgently required for honouring cheques issued by it. Shri Gital S. Patel, one of the directors, withdrew this amount from his bank account and gave Rs. 5 lakhs to the company, which was deposited in bank account. It was contended that it was neither transaction of loan or deposit and was an internal transaction, therefore, penalty was not imposable. Alternatively, it was contended that assessee had reasonable cause, inasmuch as, the ...
Tag this Judgment!