Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Asr.)451
1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst. yr. 1998-99.2. The only grievance of the assessee projected through its grounds of appeal is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order of the AO in disallowing part of the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80HHC. The facts of the case are that the assessee had credited interest from banks amounting to Rs. 59,66,540 on FDRs in the bank to the P&L a/c. While computing the deduction under Section 80HHC, the assessee had reduced 90 per cent of interest received from the net profit for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC as per Expln. (baa) below Section 80HHC(4B) inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1992, w.e.f. 1st April, 1992.While completing the assessment, the AO treated the interest on FDRs as income from other sources and thereby reduced deduction under Section 80HHC from Rs. 2.23 crores to Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)95ITD152(Asr.)
The Division Bench hearing this case while camping at Srinagar, had made a reference to the Honble President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to constitute a Special Bench consisting of three or five members in this case. Accordingly, the Honble President was pleased to constitute a Special Bench of three members to answer the following questions and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The question for the consideration of the Special Bench are : 1. Whether the provisions of section 158BC relating to issue of notice are substantive in nature or procedural in nature? 2. If they are held to be procedural in nature, then can any defect in the notice or with regard to its issue, render the block assessment proceedings to be null and void? The reply to the above questions have a direct bearing on the facts of the case before and hence we straightaway proceed to answer the above questions. At the outset, Mr. Sudhir Schga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)280ITR34(Asr.)
1. The Division Bench hearing this case while camping at Srinagar, had made a reference to the Hon'ble President, Tribunal, under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) to constitute a Special Bench consisting of three or five Members in this case. Accordingly, the Hon'ble President was pleased to constitute a Special Bench of three Members to answer the following questions and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The questions for the consideration of the Special Bench are : 1. Whether the provisions of Section 158BC relating to issue of notice are substantive in nature or procedural in nature 2. If they are held to be procedural in nature, then can any defect in the notice or with regard to its issue, render the block assessment proceedings to be null and void The reply to the above questions have a direct bearing on the facts of the case before and hence we straightaway proceed to answer the above questions. At the outset, Mr. Sudhir Sehgal, the learned counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
1. On account of difference between the learned Members of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, the following questions have been referred to me under Section 255(4) of the Income tax Act:- Whether penalty under Section 271D, in view of facts and circumstances, can be entirely deleted or matter can be restored back on the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration? i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, penalty Under Section 271D sustained by the CIT(A) deserves to be deleted or the matter is to be restored to the file of AO for reconsideration? ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the cases and having informed his intention of writing a dissenting order on 15-9-2004 and before sending a dissenting order on 25-4-2005, the action on the part of Hon'ble JM in becoming a party to a subsequent decision by the Division Bench on 30-11-2004, expressing a contrary view than proposed by the AM in the initial draft order is in conformit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)97TTJ(Asr.)28
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jammu, headquarters at Amritsar, dated 9-9-2004, for the assessment year 2001-02 on the following ground : "The CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction of Rs. 16,06,870 claimed under section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act on the alleged ground that the activity of the appellant of making bread is that of food processor and not that of manufacturers of food processor and not that of manufacturer of food.The CIT(A) is unjustified in confirming the action of assessing officer by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. ITO & Ors. (2000) 245 ITR 538 (SC) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT v. P.Devasahayam (1998) 144 CTR (Mad) 313. Both these cases have wrongly been applied on the appellant as he is not a trader in manufacturer.The appellant is a manufacturing concern exclusive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Asr.)1122
1. This is bunch of five appeals, all filed by the assessee against five orders, all dt. 15th April, 2004, of CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the assessment years from 1988-89 to 1990-91, 1993-94 and 1994-95. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The first grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the action of the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 147, as such action was void ah initio. The next grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the protective assessments made in the hands of the assessee for all these assessment years, though as per order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the income arising by way of dividend on shares of M/s Leader Valves (P) Ltd. belonged to the firm M/s Sehgal Oil & General Mills, and Sh. D.D. Sehgal was holding shares i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2007)104ITD152(Asr.)
1. This appeal by the assesses is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jammu, headquarters at Amritsar, dt. 9th Sept., 2004, for the asst. yr. 2001-02 on the following ground : "The CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction of Rs. 16,06,870 claimed under Section 80-IB of the IT Act on the alleged ground that the activity of the appellant of making bread is that of food processor and not that of manufacturers of food processor and not that of manufacturer of food. The CIT(A) is unjustified in confirming the action of AO by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. ITO and Ors. as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT v. P. Devasahayam. Both these cases have wrongly been applied on the appellant as he is not a trader in manufacturer. The appellant is a manufacturing concern exclusively deriving profits and gains from manufacturing of bread by transformi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Asr.)258
1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of these three appeals filed by the assessee against three orders of CIT(A), Bathinda, for the asst. yr. 1982-83 as the issue involved in these appeals is identical and arise from the same assessment order.2. First, we take up appeal in IT A No. 153/Asr/2000, where the only grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 96,010 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts of the case are that assessee was carrying on business of bricks kiln. For the assessment year under reference, the assessee received an amount of Rs. 1,87,786 from Lining Department (Government Department) for bricks to be supplied. Since bricks could not be supplied in the accounting year under reference, the assessee had shown such amount as liability in the balance sheet. The assessment was completed by the AO under Section 144. The AO observed that Government Department would not make an advance payment withou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Asr.)513
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order of CIT(A), Jammu with Hqrs. at Amritsar, for the asst. yr. 1983-84.2. The only issue raised in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 20,54,059 imposed by the AO under Section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return on 20th June, 1983, showing net loss of Rs. 35,75,640. The AO completed assessment by making following two additions : (i) Rs. 2,25,150 being sale of copper wire added under Section 41(2) of the IT Act, 1961. (ii) Rs. 34,28,414 being trading addition made on account of excess wastage.3. The facts leading to these additions are that the AO observed that the assessee had discarded copper wire cable worth Rs. 2,46,553 purchased during the period from 1955 to 1965. The AO observed that the assessee had not shown sale of copper wire in the P&L a/c. When the assessee was asked to explain, the assessee submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Asr.)464
1. This order shall dispose of both the above matters arising out of the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, dt. 8th Sept., 1997, for the asst.yr. 1990-91, 2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the observations of the authorities below. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,000 made on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of plot Newan, Tagore Nagar, Jalandhar.4. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are as regards addition of Rs. 48,000 on account of unexplained investment in the plot at Newan, Tagore Nagar, Jalandhar, which was disclosed in the statement under Section 132(4) of the IT Act but was later on explained through the cash flow statement. The AO, however, treated the same to be unexplained investment by observing that the assessee purchased said plot in the name of his wife, Smt, Urmila, through conveyance deed dt.10th June, 1989, for R...
Tag this Judgment!