Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Asr.)123
1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the CIT(A), Jammu with Headquarters at Amritsar for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The only effective issue raised in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) by ignoring the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Munish Iron Store (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 159 : (2003) 263 1TR 484 (P&H) and the decision of Tribunal (SMC), Amritsar Bench, in the case of Shri Joginder Pal, Prop. M/s New Radha Industries v. ITO. Ward-1, Hoshiarpur, for the asst. yr. 1993-94 (a copy of order placed at pp. 23 to 28 of the paper book). The facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return declaring therein income of Rs. 8,83,984 on 3rd July, 2001, which was processed under Section 143(1). In the return the assessee had included the value of Rs. 5,68,000 of the Opel Corsa car won by him in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Asr.)852
1. These cross-appeals--one of the assessee and another by the Revenue have been filed against the order of CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst.yr. 1999-2000. Since the issues involved in the cross-appeals are identical and are inter-related, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. (i) That the CIT(A), Jalandhar has erred in not allowing application under Rule 46A for production of additional evidence. (ii) That on the facts and law of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred by taking compensation amount of land at Rs. 54,48,390 instead of Rs. 27,24,195 as determined by Addl. District Judge vide orders dt. 16th Sept., 2003.3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee owned agricultural land at village Mansoorwala Dona. The said land was acquired by the Punjab Urban Development Authority (In short 'PUDA') and assessee was awarded compensation. Since the agricultural land acquired by the PUDA was situated within the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Asr.)728
1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax, Jammu (In short, "CIT") passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (In short, "the Act") for the asst. yr.2002-03. 1. The CIT is unjustified in cancelling the orders to the extent of issue of disallowance to be made under Section 14A of the IT Act, 1961 and also on the issue of non-availability of exemption under Section 10(23G) of the IT Act, 1961 earlier allowed by the AO rightly and correctly under Section 143(3) read with the order under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT is not correct to state that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue to the extent of above. The directions given by the CIT to AO to frame the assessment afresh on these issues is unjustified, bad in law and against the facts of the case. It is prayed that the order of CIT passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 may please be cancelled.3. The facts of the case are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Asr.)706
1. These are eight department's appeals for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. The facts being common in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this composite order.2. The department has raised the following ground of appeal No. 1 in all these eases: The learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee exemption under Section 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order dated 14-3-2007 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer, which is mandatory as per provisions of Section 250(1) and 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, thus violating the Principles of natural justice and therefore the order of CIT(A) deserves to be declared as null and void. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and case of Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 225 ITR 235 (SC) in right perspective in accordance with law and thereby has er...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Asr.)510
1. These are assessee's appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. The Registry has taken an objection that these appeals have been filed with a delay of 2 years 9 months and 14 days.2. The facts are that the CIT(A) disposed of the first appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 and 1990-91, vide a consolidated order dated 1-11-2003. As per Section 253(3), an appeal, in order to be within limitation, can be filed before the Tribunal within sixty days of the date on which the order of the CIT(A), was communicated to the assessee. As per Form No. 36, Column 9, the date of communication of the order of the CIT(A) to the assessee, is 16-12-2003. Therefore, the appeals could have been filed within limitation on or before 14-2-2004. However, these appeals have been filed only on 30-11-2006. According to the applications for condonation of delay originally filed, the delay incurred is of 1021 days. The Registry, as stated hereinabove, has objec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
1. These are department's appeals for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The facts remaining similar, they are, for facility, being taken from I.T.A. No. 468(ASR)/2006.2. The department contends that the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to treat the income of the assessee as business income rather than income from house property, ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shambhu Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT 3. The facts are that for the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had filed a return of income on 16-10-2003 declaring a net taxable income of Rs. 1,84,380/-. The source of income was rent of building, received from M/s. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. ("CFCFIL", for short), at Rs. 8,64,000/-. The A.O. issued a questionnaire to the assessee, asking it to explain as to why it should not be brought under Sections 22 to 25 of the Income tax Act, and as to why the income received from CFCFIL be considered as income from house pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Asr.)878
1. These are four appeals. Out of these two have been filed by the assessee against two orders (both dt. 14th Feb., 2005) of CIT(A), Bhatinda, for the asst. yr. 2000-2001 arising from the orders of the AO passed under Section 163 of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act').Appeals in ITA Nos. 369 and 370/Asr/2005 have been filed by the assessee against two orders (both dt. 12th April, 2005) of CIT(A), Jammu with Hqrs. at Amritsar for the asst. yr. 2000-2001 and these appeals arise from the assessments completed under Section 143(3).Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and inter-related, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First, we take up appeals filed against two orders of CIT(A), Bhatinda, arising from the orders under Section 163 of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken: 1. The order dt. 10th March, 2003 passed under Section 163 by the Asstt. CIT, Range-3, Amr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Asr.)427
1. This appeal of the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee have been filed against the order of CIT(A), Jalandhar for the asst. yr.2002-03. Since the issues raised in the appeal filed by the. Revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are interrelated and arise from the same order of the CIT(A), these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First, we take up cross-objections filed by the assessee, where the following grounds have been taken: 1. That the order of the CIT(A) is well reasoned on the law and facts of the case. 2. That even on merits the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IB is wrongly made by the AO. The AO has gravely erred in deducting the amount of DEPB including premium on sale of DEPB from profit and gains of business of the undertaking. 3. That the grounds of Appeal No. 3 does not arise from the order of the learned CIT(A). 4. That the deduction under Section 80-IB and Section 80HHC ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Asr.)887
1. The Department's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, for the asst. yr. 2002-03, are directed against the order dt. 31st Aug., 2005 passed by the learned CIT(A), Jalandhar. 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the following additions made by invoking the provision of Section 45(4) of the IT Act: 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that it was a case of reconstitution of firm and not of discontinuation of business.2. That facts are that the partnership firm in the name of M/s Marketers was constituted by two partners viz. Shri Mohinder Pal Shoor and his brother Shri Ved Parkash Shoor. The AO noticed that the assessee firm had been dissolved vide dissolution deed dt. 19th Dec, 2001, with effect from the same date. This dissolution deed was made between Shri Mohinder Pal Shoor and Shri Ved Pakash Shoor. A fresh partnership deed dt. 21st Dec, 2001 was executed, whereby Shri Mohinder Pal S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
1. This is assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2002-03. The assessee claims that interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, which was not originally claimed by the authorities, has erroneously been demanded while passing the order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) read with Section 194C of the Act, without issuing any show cause notice, whereas no such interest is chargeable from the assessee.2. The assessing officer charged tax and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act, the interest amounting to Rs. 2,99,830, for the assessment year 2002-03, treating the assessee responsible person to be in default, for not depositing into the Central Government account, tax collected from contractors in financial year 2001-02.3. The learned Commissioner (Appeal) having, by virtue of the impugned order, upheld the above action of the assessing officer, the assessee has filed the present appeal.4. The case of the assessee is that it is a State Government institution; that it faile...
Tag this Judgment!