Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)93TTJ(Chd.)201
1. This group of 12 appeals by four assessees of the same group emanating from different orders all dt. 16th Feb., 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A) since involve certain common facts and identical issues, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. We will take the grounds and the facts in the case of Shri Varinder Kumar in ITA Nos. 482, etc. of 2004, which are common, except variation in amount, to all the other cases. The assessee in this case has taken the following grounds : "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and issue of notice under Section 148. Further, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the impugned assessments made in consequence of the notice issued under Section 148, which are factually wrong and legally invalid. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Chd.)404
1. The Revenue (sic) is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), dt.19th Dec., 2003, in appeal No. IT/209/1999-2000/SML for the asst. yr.1995-96 on the following effective grounds : 1. That the orders passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A), Shimla, are illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A), Shimla, has erred in confirming the addition made by the learned Jt. CIT, Special Range, Shimla, of fixed assets amounting to Rs. 1297.82 lakhs of Unit II and not allowing depreciation on the same though all the details have been furnished to the file of the learned AO.2. The relevant and material facts for the disposal of the issue involved in these grounds of appeal are that originally the assessment was completed on 31st July, 1996, by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Act at nil income as a result of deduction under Section 80-IA of IT Act. The assessee is a pharmaceutical company having two industrial undertaking units styled as Unit I and Unit II manufacturing drugs i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Chd.)1159
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Ludhiana, dt. 1st Oct., 2002 in appeal No. ROT/78/IT/2000-01 for the asst. yr.1998-99 on the following effective ground : The learned CIT(A) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,29,922 made by the AO on account of interest-free loan paid to Shri Satish Behal, director, under Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The relevant and material facts for the disposal of this ground of appeal are that the assessee filed its return of income showing total income of Rs. 17,420 for the asst. yr. 1998-99 in the status of the company. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the shareholders Shri Sham Lal Bansal, Shri Satish Behal and Abha Bansal held more than 10 per cent of the shares of the assessee-company. On perusal of the accounts of the assessee, the AO further noticed that the assessee is maintaining imprest account with one of the directors Shri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)93TTJ(Chd.)925
1. The only issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal for asst. yr.1995-96 against the order dt. 16th Feb., 2000 of the CIT(A). Patiala.is relating to deletion of the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs on account of capital subsidy received by the assessee treated to be as revenue receipt by the AO. The AO had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC). The only reason for treating the subsidy as revenue receipt by the AO is that the subsidy was granted from the date of commercial production. The CIT(A) has followed the decision in the case of G.K. Textiles Ltd. in ITA No. 318/97-98/SML/C, order dt. 21st Sept., 1999 for deleting the addition.2. We have heard the parties and also gone through the scheme of the Haryana Government under which the assessee has received the subsidy of Rs. 30 lakhs. The relevant portion of the scheme is reproduced hereunder : No. 34/25/92-41BI--With a view to promoting agro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)1SOT263(Chd.)
Departmental Representative Singh, JM.-Both these appeals arising out of single order of the CIT (A) dated 8-12-2003 in appeal Nos. IT/212 & 213.03-04/PLP for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience because the facts and issue involved in the ground of appeals of the revenue are identical. The identical ground of appeals taken by the revenue reads as under: "The assessee firm claimed salary paid to the working partners, as the same is not allowable as per Circular No. 739 dated 25-3-1996 issued by the CBDT, New Delhi. Neither the salary has been quantified nor any method laid down to calculate the amount of salary to the partners as per clause 6 of the partnership deed and the Learned CIT (A) allowed the claim in favour of the assessee" The relevant and material facts for the disposal of the issue involved in the ground of appeals of the revenue are that the assessee claimed ded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)92ITD514(Chd.)
1. The appeal of the assessee for assessment year 1990-91 is directed against the order dated 26.8.2002 of the CIT(A), Rohtak.3. The relevant facts in this case are that two cash credits had appeared in the books of account of the assessee as under :- The assessee had furnished affidavits of the creditors before the AO.Subsequently, the creditors appeared before the AO and the latter recorded their statements on 11.1.91. The assessee was asked to explain the source of the credits. Smt. Gurdev Kaur in her affidavit had stated that she owned 30 acres of canal and tubewell irrigated agricultural land in village Fatuhiwala/Singhewal, Faridkot along with her husband from which annual income of Rs. 60,000/- was being received. The loan of Rs. 23,000/- to the assessee was stated to have been given out of the agricultural income. However, as per the statement of Shri Boota Singh, h/o Smt. Gurdev Kaur, it came to light that Smt. Gurdev Kaur was not having any agricultural land in her name. Cop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)1SOT257(Chd.)
We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals of the revenue for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 by this, consolidated order.The common issue involved in these appeals is relating to computation of deduction under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a Co-operative Society engaged in the activities of marketing and agricultural produce. It derives income which is partly taxable and partly enjoys deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 80G at the rate of 100 per cent. Since there is no dispute about the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80G, the assessing officer allowed the same but restricted the deduction proportionately vis-a-vis the taxable income and non-taxable income. The CIT (A) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It is the case of the revenue that since the contribution /donation was debited to the Profit & Loss account, the CIT (A) was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Chd.)790
1. These three appeals filed by the assessee arising from the three different orders of the CIT(A) in appeal No. ROT 169/2002-03, dt. 10th Feb., 2004, in asst. yr. 1993-94, appeal No. ROT 170/2002-03, dt. 10th Feb., 2004, in asst. yr. 1994-95 and appeal No. ROT 456/2002-03, dt.10th Feb., 2004, in asst. yr. 1997-98, were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience because the issues of investment in the property in question and the rent received therefrom by the assessee, are identical.2. First, we would like to mention that the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee did not press ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee relating to the asst. yr. 1993-94 pertaining to the issue of no opportunity of being heard being provided to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal taken by the assessee is rejected as not pressed. (ii) The other issue raised in ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee relating to the as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)92TTJ(Chd.)780
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), dt. 1st May, 2003.2. First ground of this appeal relates to the sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 15,083 out of depreciation claimed on jeep for Rs. 90,500.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 90,500 on the jeep. When the AO questioned about the details of expenditure of jeep as well as the depreciation, it was stated that the temporary use of jeep by the partners would not effect liability of salary to the driver for the year as a whole and that the assessee was entitled for the depreciation for full year even when the vehicle is used for half year. The AO, on the other hand, opined that use for the purpose other than business had been admitted by the assessee and only a general explanation was given by it. He was of the view that the depreciation on the vehicle was to be disallowed to the extent that the expenditure had been incurred for personal use of the vehicl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Chd.)469
1. The appeal of the assessee for the asst. yr. 2000-01 is directed against the order dt. 10th Feb., 2004, of the CIT(A), Patiala.2. The dispute is about the assessment of a sum of Rs. 3,72,644 assessed under Section 115BB of the IT Act, 1961.4. The relevant facts in this case are that the Punjab State through Director, Small Savings, under the Ministry of Finance had formulated a lucky coupon scheme by virtue of which a person was eligible to get one free coupon on deposit of Rs. 5,000 and three coupons on deposit of Rs. 10,000. The assessee had invested Rs. 20,000 in Kisan Vikas Patra and as per the scheme received the lucky coupons. As per the draw of lots, the assessee was awarded 3rd prize of a Maruti car in respect of lucky coupon No. 0939113 of 16th draw by the Finance Minister. As per the scheme, the Punjab Government had undertaken to pay income-tax on the prize distributed in the lucky coupon scheme. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,63,963 was deposited by the Government of Punja...
Tag this Judgment!