Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Dr. O.K. Narayanan, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-2010. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai passed on 31.10.2012. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 02. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of trading in automobiles and general spare parts. The assessee firm had invested 38 lakhs in REC Bonds on 24.03.2009. This amount of 38 lakhs was received by the assessee firm against surrendering its tenancy rights. The entire amount of 38 lakhs received by the assessee was deposited in REC Bonds, which is a specified investment for claiming exemption on capital gains tax. The assessee claimed deduction under 54EC on the above ground. But the Assessing authority held that the deposit was made after a period of six months and therefore the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption qua the long term capi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member: 1. The appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-VI, Chennai dated 08-01-2013 relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. 2 I.T.A. No. 1268/Mds/2013 2. The assessee had filed his return of income for the AY. 2007-08 on 06-08-2007 admitting a loss `37,91,151/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made certain additions/ dis-allowances in the income returned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer apart from other dis-allowances made dis- allowance of `38,83,792/- in respect of interest payments. The assessee had purchased Business Asset, a Theatre at Mount Road, Chennai in the year 2004. The assessee had been screening films in the theatre till the end of the AY.2006-07. In the beginning of AY.2007-08, the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member: 1. The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Chennai dated 07-02-2013 relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 1999-2000. 2. The assessee is a Government company and a State Financial Investment Corporation. The assessee filed its return of income for the AY.1999-2000 on 31-12-1999 admitting a total income of `13,30,63,520/-. The return of income of the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') on 17-07-2000. Subsequently, re-assessment proceedings were initiated and assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed on 18-03-2002. The case of the assessee was remitted back by the Tribunal to verify whether the business activities of the assessee claimed as long term financing activities would come under explanation (e) of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The set aside assessment was completed on 29-12-2008. Again the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member: These two appeals are filed by the Assessee and the Revenue, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Chennai in ITA No.596/2011-12 dated 12.03.2013 for assessment year 2009-10 passed under section 143(3 ) read with section 147 and Sec.250 of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised several argumentative and elaborate grounds in his appeal, and they are briefly stated herein-below for adjudication. 1. Ld. Ld. CIT (A) had erred by confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.36,74,800/- as unexplained investment in shares. 2. Ld. CIT(A) had erred by remitting back the issue with the direction in regard to the addition of Rs.2,05,468 towards profit on sale of shares under the head short term capital gain without considering the fact that the gain arrived from the sale of shares were long term capital gain and further exempt U/s. 10(38) of the Act. 3. Similarly the Revenue has raised several argumentative grounds and they are concised herein-below for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Abraham P. George, Accountant Member: In this appeal filed by the assessee, its grievance is that cost of erection of barricades and maintenance Rs.52,20,830/- was not allowed to be set off against advertisement income of Rs.30,60,000/-. 2 I.T.A. No. 795/Mds/13 2. Facts apropos are that assessee, engaged in construction of a portion of OMR from Madhya Kailash of Adyar upto Siruseri, was doing the project on build, operate and transfer basis. Expenditure incurred for construction of the road was considered by the assessee as project cost that was to be recouped from the Government of Tamil Nadu, lateron, when the road was handed over to the Government. During the road laying work, for controlling the heavy flow of traffic, barricades were erected. Cost of erection of barricades and maintaining such barricades, as per assessee, came to Rs.52,20,830/-. Assessee had placed certain advertisements on such barricades which earned it an income of `30,60,000/-. Assessee had claimed set off of b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Abraham P. George, Accountant Member : In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it has raised four grounds of which, ground Nos.1 and 4 are general needing no adjudication. 2. Vide its ground No.2, it assails deletion of addition of ` 4.20 Crores made by the Assessing Officer for billing in excess of revenue. 3. Before us, learned A.R. submitted that this issue stood covered by the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08. A copy of the order in I.T.A. No. 481/Mds/2011 dated 18th May, 2012, was placed on record. 4. Learned D.R., on the other hand, submitted that though the issue was similar to that of assessment year 2007-08, in the said year, assessee had produced detailed bill-wise explanation to show that bills were raised by it on its clients without corresponding work being rendered. As per learned D.R., no such details were furnished for the relevant previous year. 5. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member The three appeals- ITA No. 1326/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2007-08, ITA No. 1327/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and ITA No. 917/Mds/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 have been filed by the Revenue impugning the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Chennai for the respective Assessment Years. 2. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is same, all the three appeals are taken up for adjudication together. At the request of the ld. DR, the facts are taken from ITA No. 1327/Mds/2012 relevant to the AY. 2008-09 as the assessment order for the AY. 2008-09 is detailed. The ld. AR of the assessee has not raised any objection to this request of the ld. DR. 3. The facts in brief are; the assessee is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing PY seals for dry batteries and torch lights. The assessee is manufacturing torch lights for M/s. Nippo Batteris Co....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Abraham P. George, Accountant Member : Assessee in this appeal had sold a residential house at Film Nagar, Hyderabad, during the relevant previous year, for a sum of Rs.6,50,00,000/-. After deducting indexed cost of acquisition, the long term capital gain came to Rs. 5,98,25,430/-. In the tax return filed, assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on such capital gain for acquisition of a new residential house at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, for Rs. 1,86,15,220/- and acquisition of a land for Rs. 1,90,00,000/- for the purpose of constructing a residential house. Balance amount was placed in deposits in capital gains scheme. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that exemption under Section 54 could be given to only one residential property. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of exemption with reference to first property, viz. Rs.1,86,15,220/- and reworked the total income. 2. Assessee moved in appeal before CIT(Appeals) against the denial of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Challa Nagendra Prasad, JM: 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai dated 11.6.2012 in ITA No.286/11-12 for the assessment year 2004-05. The only grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that reopening of assessment under section 147 is invalid. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of silencers and noise control equipments. For the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee filed return on 31.10.2004 admitting loss of Rs.44,91,276/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 1.6.2005 determining loss at Rs.43,52,762/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.2,95,98,553/-. While completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction claimed by the assessee under section 10B and made addi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
1. These appeals by assessee and the Department are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience since common issues are involved in these appeals. 2. First we take up the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1200 to 1206/Mds/2012. These appeals emanate from the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai, dated 22.12.2011 in ITA Nos.212 to 218/10-11. We find that these appeals are filed with delay of 101 days. However, the assessee has filed petition explaining reasons for delay in filing of these appeals and prayed for condoning the delay in filing these appeals. We have carefully gone through the reasons advanced in the petition and we are satisfied that sufficient and reasonable cause exists for delay in filing these appeals. We condone the delay of 101 days and admit these appeals. 3. The only common ground in the grounds of appeals of the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in e...
Tag this Judgment!