Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Chd.)548
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), dt. 23rd Dec., 1998. 1. That the order of AO as upheld by the learned CIT(A), Ludhiana, is bad in law and is beyond all the cannons of law and justice. 2. That the order of AO as upheld by the learned CIT(A), Ludhiana, is not considering the revised computation of income and relying upon the original return in view of the facts and circumstances of the case is bad in law. 3. That the order of AO as upheld by the learned CIT(A), Ludhiana is not appreciating the settled decisions of law by accepting the revised return of income/computation chart more specifically when the appellant had specifically shown its intention to revise the return and the same was revised in order to complete its obligation immediately after adjudication of the issue by the authorities is bad in law and needs to be set aside.3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed original return of income on 31st Oct., 1994 which w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Chd.)896
1. We find it convenient to dispose of this bunch of five appeals -three by the assessee and two by the revenue by this consolidated order. The appeals of the assessee are relating to assessment years 95-96, 96-97 and 97-98 and the appeals of the revenue are for the assessment years 95-96 and 97-98. Parties have been heard and record perused.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that assessee was engaged in the lottery business in the name and style of Manish Lottery Agencies, Jaipur uptil assessment year 95-96. The assessee was also carrying on the lottery business at New Delhi in the name and style of M/s Ravi Ajmera from assessment year 93-94 onwards. Assessee had also started its lottery business from Pune under the name and style of Ravi Ajmera, Pune. The assessee being individual is residing at Jaipur and controlling the business in Jaipur and Pune through its headquarter and controlling office at Jaipur. The nature of lottery business carried on by the assessee in assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Chd.)796
1. We find it convenient to dispose of this appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee relating to the block period 1st April, 1988 to 19th Nov., 1998, by this consolidated order. We have heard the parties and perused the records.2. We first take up the appeal of the Revenue. The two effective grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) has, on facts as well as in law, erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,35,000 made by the AO on account of undisclosed investments/ loans/advances for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 19th Nov., 1998. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has, on facts as well as in law, erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,83,975 made by the AO on account of interest earned by the assessee.3. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that there was a search at the premises of the assessee and her husband as also at the business premises on 19th Nov., 1998. The respondent is also a regular taxpayer and so is her husband. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Chd.)409
1. These two cross-appeals are directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 10th March, 2000, for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 6th March, 1997.2. Since the appeals were heard together, so, are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred by not allowing deduction for rebate available in different years in respect of interest income of the block period in terms of Section 80L of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1 lakh on account of household expenses. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 75,000 on account of jewellery. 5. The assessing authority is not justified in initiating penalty proceedings, because all the amounts assessed stand disclosed in various letters and explanations give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2006)5SOT645(Chd.)
I find it convenient to dispose of these six appeals of the assessee for assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02 involving common issues, by this consolidated order. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The common issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the income by way of rent in respect of the house property is assessable in the hands of the HUF or in the hands of the members of the family.The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that Shri B.R. Talwar is head of Hindu Undivided Family which comprises of himself, his wife Smt.Kailash Talwar, two sons Shri Sanjeev Talwar and Shri Vikram Talwar (both married) and one daughter Vandana Talwar, who got married in 1988 as stated by the assessee. The Hindu Undivided Family owned and possessed a residential House No. 105, Navjivan Vihar, New Delhi. A memorandum of family arrangement was executed on 10-10-1990 amongst the persons being members of the HUF named hereunder : (i) Shri B.R. Talwar, son of Shri Basantlal Talwar, re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Chd.)859
1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) in appeal No.73/IT/CIT(A)/PTA/97-98, dt. 17th March, 1998, on the following effective ground : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 76,60,927 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961." 2. The relevant and material facts for the disposal of this ground of appeal are that in asst. yr. 1988-89, the assessee was maintaining mix-method of accounting whereas in respect of export incentive, interest payable on exports and the interest received from IDBI were being declared on receipt basis. However, during the accounting period relevant to period 1989-90, the assessee had to change his method of mix accounting to mercantile system of accounting because of the amendment of Section 209 of the Companies Act. The assessee had complied with these provisions. However, since there was no consequential amendment to Section 145 of the IT Act, the assessee at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)278ITR254(Chd.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Ld.CIT(A) dated 14.12.1999. "1 Ld. CIT(A), on the facts as well as in law, has erred in law In deleting the interest of Rs. 35,257 charged by the Assessing Officer Under Section 234C of IT Act." "2 Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the above interest by holding that tax Under Section 115JA is not payable in installments of advance tax, falling to appreciate that the provisions governing the advance tax do not differentiate between tax Under Section 115JA and that under the general provisions of law." 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the income of the assessee was computed Under Section 115JA of IT Act and the Assessing Officer charged interest Under Section 234C amounting to Rs. 35,257.4. The assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the charging of interest Under Section 234C Ld. CIT(A) asked the comments of the Assessing Officer who submitted that Section 115JA came into existence w.e.f. 1....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2006)6SOT703(Chd.)
Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) passed in Appeal No. 25/IT/2K-01, dated 15-3-2001 on the following effective ground : "(a) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has, on facts as well as in law, erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 lakh made on account of bogus foreign gifts.(b) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the alleged donor had no relation with the assessee and that there was no occasion for gifts.(c) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that on facts, on the basis of which the assessee claimed an old association between him and the donor, were proved false.(d) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessee had offered an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to be added to his income subject to no penalty, which was not accepted by the assessing officer.(e) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, as per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)3SOT861(Chd.)
These appeals by the assessee and the department involve certain common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.ITA No. 450/Mds./98In this appeal, the revenue has raised the following effective ground of appeal: "2.1 The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee has a choice to claim the deduction under section 80HHE or 80-O.2.2 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that a comprehensive fiscal incentive was given to the Software Industry by giving deduction under section 80HHE. Customs duty concession, non-levy of income-tax on lump sum payable for using the software, concessional rate of tax under section 15A for royalty payment for use of software vide Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 and as explained in Circular No. 621.2.3 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that by introducing the new section 80HHE, the Legislature intended to give deduction under section 80HHE only with regard to the software export.2,4 The CIT(A) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2005)93ITD442(Chd.)
1. Appeal of the assessee for assessment year 87-88 is directed against the order dated 26.12.95 of the CIT(A), Shimla and the dispute is relating to penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,06,09,1 50 sustained by the CIT(A) out of Rs. 2,01,18,300 imposed by the AO. We have heard the parties and perused the records.2. Relevant facts briefly stated are that the assessee is a Govt. owned company wherein the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh holds 100% shares. The company is engaged in the business of extraction of timber and resin from forests. For assessment year 87-88, the assessee had filed the return on 30.3.90 declaring income of Rs. 58,27,000, which was subsequently revised on 30.3.91 to Rs. 72,60,868. The original return had been processed Under Section 143(1)(a) on 27.3.91. After receipt of the revised return, the AO issued notice Under Section 148 on 6.1.92 as, according to him, the income of the assessee had escaped assessment on the ground that for assessment year 83-84, claim of th...
Tag this Judgment!