Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Chd.)700
1. We find it expedient to pass a consolidated order in the three appeals which arise out of a common order of the CWT(A), dt. 3rd May, 2005 pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1993-94 to 1995-96.2. The Revenue has raised two grounds of appeal in each of the assessment year which are common. The first ground in all the appeals relates to the decision of the CWT(A) in quashing the assessment framed by the AO under Section 16(3) of the WT Act. 1957 (in short 'the Act') on the ground that the initiation of proceedings under Section 17 of the Act was invalid. Since the fact position in all the years stand on identical footing, we hereinafter detail the facts in relation to the asst. yr. 1993-94. The assessee before us is an HUF. For the asst. yr.1993-94 the AO issued a notice under Section 17(1) of the Act on the ground that certain wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In response the assessee filed a return of wealth on 13th March. 2002 in the status of an 'individual'. The AO made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Chd.)982
1. The captioned appeals are preferred by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the respective assessees arising out of a common order of the CIT(A) dt. 9th March, 2007 pertaining to asst. yr.1997-98. The three assesseesin question are co-oweners of land situated at Village Giaspura (Ludhiana) 2. The dispute in the present appeals relates to the manner of computation of capital gain accruing as a result of sale of said land by the three co-owners in the year under consideration. We find it expedient to pass a consolidated order since the issue involved is common.3. Since the facts and circumstances in all the appeals are common, we may refer to the facts in relation to the case of Smt. Baljinder Kaur, ITA No. 545/Chd/2007. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee sold her share of the impugned land at a total consideration of Rs. 71,67,000 during the year under consideration. The land owned by the assessee was 2.16 acres. The assessee declared a loss of Rs. 4,69,200 on account...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Chd.)426
1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue challenging the Order of the learned CIT (A) dt. 29th Sept., 2006 on the ground that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred in cancelling the assessment framed Under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the Act.2. During arguments we have heard Shri A.K. Mehta learned Departmental Representative and Shri B.K Nohria learned chartered accountant for the assessee. The contention on behalf of the Revenue is that the assessee did not pay tax to the declaration made under VDIS The learned CIT (A) quashed the assessment without assigning any reason specially when there was adequate information with the AO. Reliance was placed upon 1TA No. 951/Chd/2006. On the other hand, the contention on behalf of the assessee that the Revenue is merely suspecting and there was no reasonable belief with the AO. ITA No. 257/Chd/2003 was relied upon.3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
1. These are bunch of four appeals preferred by assessee for various assessment years viz,, 1995-96,1996-97, 1998-99 and 2000-01.2. The substantive common ground in all the appeals relate to the action of the revenue in denying deduction to the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee derived income in respect of job executed for Haryana Government by way of which it manufactured photo identity cards. The profits derived from such activity have been held by the assessing officer not eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80-IA and such claim has also been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee carried out the work relating to manufacture of photo identity cards of voters according to the specifications of Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana. Apart from this, the assessee also undertook the manufacture of photo identity cards f or other companies also. The assessee s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)107ITD343(Chd.)
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) at Chandigarh dt. 19th Jan., 2005. It arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of food and healthcare products. The assessee is the brand owner of "Horlicks". The assessee company has returned an income of Rs. 132,15,75,339 for the impugned asst. yr. 2001-02. While completing the assessment, the assessing authority has made certain disallowances/additions and thereby the assessment was finally concluded on an income of Rs. 147,29,65,974.3. The total central excise deposits in the account-current of the assessee and the unutilised Modvat credit on 31st March, 2001, the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal was Rs. 10,99,72,355. The balance on the last day of the immediately preceding previous year, as on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
1. These are a group of appeals preferred by the revenue and Cross Objections by different assessees arising out of the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The proceedings have a commonality apart from other issues inasmuch as the assessments have been framed by the ACIT, Yamuna Nagar by taking re-course to provisions of Section 158BD read with Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the block period ending on 14-9-1999. It was also a common ground between the parties before us that the facts and circumstances which have culminated in passing of block assessments under Chapter XIV-B of the Act on all the assessees spring from a singular action of search under Section 132(1) carried out by the revenue and therefore the issues raised are identical. For the above reasons, we have heard A the aforesaid appeals and C.O.s together and proceed to dispose of the same by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.2. In order t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)107ITD111(Chd.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1995-96 under the Gift Tax Act is directed against order of CIT (Appeals), upholding imposition of gift on the assessee.2. The facts of the case are that during survey carried by the Revenue Under Section 133A on the business premises of Shri Kuldeep Singh Bhatia, Prop. M/s Giani Ka Dhaba at Dharampur, Smt. Jasbir Kaur in her statement is stated to have admitted that one flat at Mani Majra, Chandigarh was gifted to her by her mother Mrs Gurcharan Kaur, who expired on 20.1.1999. It was found in subsequent proceedings that flat was allotted somewhere in April, 1994 to Smt. Jasbir Kaur by Chandigarh Housing Board but some installments for consideration were paid by Smt.Gurcharan Kaur in her life time. The detail is noted in the assessment order for assessment year 1995-96. This was taken to be a case of deemed gift Under Section 4(1)(e) of the Gift Tax Act and accordingly notice Under Section 16(1) of Income-tax Act was issued to Smt. Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2008)110ITD211(Chd.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the ld CUT (A)-1. Ludhiana dated 21.3. 2002 1 a) The CIT(A)-1 on facts of the case as well as in law and erred in holding that for the purposes of computation of deduction under Section 80 HHC. 90% of interest income as to be reduced from the profits or gains of the business by adopting interest income at Rs. 283.64 lac instead of interest income of Rs. 688.40 lac. b) The ld CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that amount of interest of Rs. 404.76, which is the difference of interest income of Rs. 668.40 lac as against Rs. 283.64 lac as considered of the assessee in us return of income, represented the interest received from customers on belated payments and also from suppliers on advance payments made to them, is part of business income of the assessee.3. As regards to the above around, it was a common contention of both the parties that the issue is covered by the order dated 22.12. of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in TA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)107ITD118(Chd.)
1. On account of difference between the learned Members of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chandigarh, the issue in dispute has been referred to me Under Section 255(4) and is reflected in the following question: Whether the credit for the tax deducted at source in the previous year is to be allowed in the assessment year relevant to the year in which deduction has been made or in the year in which the income is assessable to tax 2 The briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee in the financial year 2002-03 carried business of commission agent in hosiery yarn The assessee had been following the cash system of accounting and claimed in his return for the assessment year 2003-04 credit for TDS deducted and paid by various parties as per Certificates of such deduction issued to the assessee. However, as entire amount of commission mentioned in TDS Certificates was not actually paid, the assessee only showed the commission, which was actually received, in the relevan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Chd.)269
1. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 19th Sept., 2005. During arguments, we have heard Shri Ashwani Kumar learned Counsel for the assessee and Dr. Rajiv Harit learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. The contention of the assessee is that levy of penalty under Section 158BFA(2) is not mandatory rather discretionary and this discretion has to be used judiciously. Plea was also raised that the assessee had been regularly filing the return and merely for the asst. yr. 1996-97, it was not filed till the date of search which was conducted on 2nd Jan., 1997 and admittedly was filed after the search. It was strongly contended that the assessee had already paid the tax @ 60 per cent and also the advance tax on the impugned amount, therefore, the penalty should not have been imposed. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Dy. CIT v.Suresh Kumar On the other hand the contention of the Revenue is that penalty was rightly imposed as once...
Tag this Judgment!