Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. Since the issue involved in all the aforesaid appeals are common, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to decide all these appeals by this consolidated order.Intt. Tax Appeal Nos. 1 & 2/Alld/1996 (Asst. Yrs :1992-93 & 1993-94 -Sahara India Savings & Investment Corpn. Ltd.): 2. Ground Nos. 1 to 6 of Intt.Tax Appeal No. 1(Alld) of 1996 and Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of Intt.Tax Appeal No. 2(Alld) of 1996 pertains to the issue whether the appellant-company, which is a 'Residuary Non Banking Company', can be brought within the purview of the Interest Tax Act and whether it can be considered a Miscellaneous Finance Company as defined in section 2(5B) & (vi) of the Interest Tax Act, as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991.3. We have heard the parties and the brief facts necessary for the decision of the issue are as under : The appellant-company was incorporated on 11th August, 1987 and its main objects are reproduced in para-7 Page 4 of the C.I.T.(A)'s order for the Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2000)75ITD183(All.)
1. In this appeal, against the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Kanpur, dated 28-11-1997, the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period, completed under the provisions of Chapter XIVB of the Income-tax Act. The block period is from 1-4-1994 to 28-11-1996.2. This appeal was heard on priority basis as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Hon'ble Court, vide its order dated 23-7-1999, has directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal by 15th September, 1999.3. In the grounds of appeal, initially, the assessee took as many as 46 grounds. As many of these grounds were argumentative in nature, an objection was filed on behalf of the Department on 19-4-1999 alleging that these grounds being in the nature of written arguments, either should not be allowed, or in the alternative, the assessee should not be allowed to make arguments, simultaneously.4. The appellant moved an application for admitting additional grounds.Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. This is an appeal by the assessee in which the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period completed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) on various grounds.Hearing of this appeal has been fixed on priority basis as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dt. 16th March,1999.2. In the grounds of appeal enclosed along with the memorandum of appeal the assessee has listed as many as 9 grounds but at the time of hearing the assessee's learned counsel Shri S. K. Garg, withdrew Ground No. 3.1 and 3.4 which are dismissed as withdrawn.In these grounds the assessee has objected to the validity of the notice dt. 12th Dec., 1996, issued as required by the provisions of s.158BC of the Act.3.1. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned Addl.standing counsel.3.2. The counsel for the assessee first of all submitted that the notice required to be served upon the assessee as per the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. In this appeal the assessee has objected to the assessment order for block period passed by the AO under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act (hereinafter called the Act) and has listed as many as 21 grounds.1.1. In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant/assessee also sought permission, as per letter dt. 15th February, 1999, for admission of two additional grounds. But since the counsel for the assessee pleaded for withdrawal of the additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal, the same are dismissed as such.2. As far as the other grounds are concerned, we have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned Departmental Representative and proceed to decide the various issues as under : 3. These grounds are against the determination of appellant's undisclosed 'income of Rs. 4,05,840 on the basis of seized documents marked as Annexure A-1.3.1. Before divulging to the arguments advanced by the parties, we consider it necessary to refer to the brief facts, as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. In these two appeals against the consolidated order of the CIT(A)-I, Varanasi, dt. 29th February, 1993, the assessee is objecting to the sustenance of penalty of Rs. 3,64,608 and Rs. 8,77,296 imposed under s.271C of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. As many as six identical grounds have been taken in each of the appeals which are argumentative in nature.2. Briefly stated, the facts concerning the matter are that the assessee, a Senior Accounts Officer in B-Thermal Power Project of U.P.State Electricity Board, Anpara, was a person responsible for deduction of tax at source under s. 194-C of the Act from payments made to contractors and sub-contractors. During the financial years 1989-90 and 1990-91 and 1991-92, payments of Rs. 1,68,80,000 and Rs. 3,91,65,000 were made to M/s Indian Railway Construction Co. (IRCON in short). On scrutiny of the returns in Form No. 26C filed by the aforesaid person, the ITO (TDS) noticed that deduction of the prescri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. The common issue involved in all these appeals by the Revenue of 3 different appellants of the same group relates to the imposition of penalties under s. 271C of the IT Act for failure to deduct and pay the tax at source as required by the provisions of s. 194H of the IT Act.For the sake of convenience, we proceed to decide these appeals by this consolidated order. The common ground, except the quantum of penalty, for all these 3 cases, as taken by the Revenue, runs as under : "That the CIT(A) erred in law and facts in cancelling the penalty under s. 271C of Rs. 9,99,513 in spite of the clear-cut provision as laid down in s. 271C that the person failing to deduct the tax as required by s. 194H shall be liable for penalty under s. 271C. Further the CIT(A)'s order in A. No. 41/TDS/VNS/1992-93 dt. 12th March, 1993, on similar issue has not been accepted by the Department and the matter is still sub judice before the Tribunal." 2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. In this appeal, the assessee has objected to the order of CIT(A), dt. 30th June, 1994 by way of following grounds : "1. That the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering auditors report, dt. 21st December, 1989, issued on Form No. 3CA and filed along with the return of income. 3. That the penalty confirmed is very excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice." 2. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well as learned Departmental Representative but before considering the rival submissions, we think it necessary to extract the brief facts relating to the issue which are necessary for disposal of the dispute and as revealed from the records, as under : 3. The assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act. Return based on estimate along with audit report in Form 3CA which was based on unaudited accounts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. In this appeal the assessee has listed four grounds in his appeal the only issue involved is the denial of assessee's claim of deduction under s. 80C of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 24,392 out of total claim of Rs. 29,300. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned Departmental Representative. The assessee's counsel has submitted that the requirement of provisions of s. 80C is that the contribution should be out of taxable income and it nowhere states that the taxable income should be of the same year in which the contribution has been made. He has further submitted that the past savings of the assessee, if proved to be out of taxable income of past years, have to be taken as taxable income for the purpose of s. 80C, and that contribution out of such past savings qualifies for deduction under s.80C. Reverting to the facts of the case, the assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee was an employee of M/s Jai Prakash Associates (P) Ltd. where it was maintaining tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. This appeal filed by the Department against the order of the learned CIT(A)-II, Lucknow, dt. 19th August, 1994, for the asst. yr. 1990-91 is directed against the cancellation of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961.2. The facts concerning this matter are that in view of the provisions of s. 44AB of the IT Act the assessee Corporation was required to get its accounts audited and to obtain the audit report before the specified date which was 31st December, 1990 for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee obtained audit report on 31st December, 1990, from its chartered accountants M/s P. Bhargava & Co.The report on Form No. 3CA alongwith Form No. 3CD was filed on 31st December, 1990. However, it was specified in the report that statutory audit of the corporation has not been conducted in pursuance of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, hence it has annexed unaudited copy of the P&L a/c for the year ending 31st March, 1990, alon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1999)68ITD288(All.)
1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two appeals by two different assessees of the same group against the orders dt. 22nd September, 1997, of the Asstt. CIT, Circle II (1), Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brief) for the block period 1st April, 1986, to 25th September, 19961 as they involve similar facts and common questions of law and were argued by the same set of counsel from both sides.2. Dr. R. M. L. Mehrotra, assisted by his son, Dr. Sanjay Mehrotra, the other appellant, his wife, Dr. Bandana Mehrotra and certain other doctors, is running a pathology clinic in the capital city of Lucknow.The aforesaid trio of doctors together with other connected doctors, all members of a bigger family, were subjected to search on 25th September, 1996, when certain assets, account books and other documents, etc. were found and seized. The assessments of the present appellants were completed by...
Tag this Judgment!