Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
1. The assessee has filed these 11 appeals under the Wealth Tax Act challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-IV, Kochi for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1999-2000. The facts pertaining to these appeals as well as most of the issues are common, hence these appeals were heard together and now are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. We will first take up the appeals relating to assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 as we will have to decide the issues considering the pre-amended Wealth Tax Act.WTA Nos. 31,32,33 and 34 (Coch.)/2006-assessment years 1989-90,1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93.3. The briefly stated facts pertaining to these appeals are as under : The assessee was an NRI. She stayed in Singapore from 1962 to 1993 and returned to India and settled in Kottayam. The assessee was owning 66.717 cents of land within the municipal limits of Kottayam and the said land was purchased by the assessee for the total ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
1. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-Il, Trivandrum dated 10-8-2005 for the assessment year 2001-02.2. The first issue which arises for our consideration is denial of depreciation on the building used by the assessee-firm for its business purposes, though the same was standing in the names of two of the partners. It was found by the assessing officer that as per the title deed in respect of the office building, the same was purchased in the names of the partners and the title deed was pledged with Nedungadi bank Ltd. for availing overdraft facilities. The assessing officer was of the opinion that merely because the assessee has made finances for purchasing the said building or that the property Was shown among the fixed assets in the assessee's books of account was not conclusive of the ownership of the property and the same is required to be registered in the name of the assessee. In the, opinion of the assessing officer, the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (2007)108ITD288(Coch.)
1. This is an appeal preferred by the revenue in the case of Shri T.G.Veeraraghavan, 170, Rainbow Drive, Opp. Wipro Corporate Office, Bangalore-560 035 against the appellate order dated 27-01-2005 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Kochi, for the assessment year 1996-97. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing to give credit for the entire T.D.S. even when only one fourth of the rental income is assessed in the hands of the assessee. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to note that proportionate income as per proviso to Section 199.3. The brief facts of the case are that the Shri Shri T.G.Veeraraghavan, a resident individual, filed his return of income on 31-12-1997 declaring total income of Rs. 1,90,810/-, for the assessment year 1996-97. While working out the refund due to the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,85,875/-, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs, 2,31,069/- towards tax deducted at source. This return was processed under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (2008)303ITR118(Coch.)
1. In this group of appeals of the same assessee, four appeals are preferred by the assessee which relate to the asst. yrs. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-02 and one appeal is preferred by the Revenue relating to the asst. yr. 1997-98. Since most of the issues are common in these appeals, these appeals were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first common issue in all appeals of the assessee is with regard to levy of interest under Section 234B and under Section 234C of the IT Act, 1961, when the tax liability arises under the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act. The assessee is a closely held company which is engaged in the business of hotel. In all the years under consideration, the assessee company filed its returns of income declaring the total income as computed under the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act. The assessee had also paid advance tax. For the purpose of assessment, the assessee's income was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Coch.)1140
1. These appeals by the two different assessees and six cross-appeals by the Revenue are filed challenging the different orders of the CWT(A)-m, Trivandrum. As far as WTA Nos. 35 to 39/Coch/2002 and 110/Coch/2005 are concerned, they relate to asst. yrs. 1994-95 to 2000-01. The Revenue's appeals being WTA Nos. 59 to 64/Coch/2002 pertain to asst. yrs. 1993-94 to 1998-99. WTA Nos. 134 and 135/Coch/2005 relate to asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-01, respectively.In all these appeals, the facts are identical and issues are common, hence, all these appeals were heard together and now being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first common issue which arises for our consideration in assessees' appeals is whether the cash recorded in the books of account and held in the business of the assessees as on the valuation date is an asset within the meaning of Section 2(ea) of the WT Act.3. The facts in brief can be stated that both the assessees are cashew exporters and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (2007)111TTJ(Coch.)979
1. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-III, Trivandrum dated 29-3-2005 and these appeals relate to Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2001-02. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are now being disposed of by a common order.2. The facts of this case are in a narrow compass. The assessee company was manufacturing tiles and bricks which business was carried on at Asramom, Kollam. Due to heavy losses, the company discontinued the said business. The assessee company was owning 540 cents of land which was divided into different revenue villages i.e. Kollam Village and Trikkadavoor Panchayat. Out of the said 540 cents of land, the assessee sold 165 cents of land during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1996-97. Out of the balance land, 215 cents of land were situated in the Kollam Village and 160 cents were situated in Trikkadavoor Panchayat. For the purpose of business, the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (2007)292ITR56(Coch.)
1. The Revenue has filed these six appeals challenging the impugned orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-I, Trivandrum for the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1995-96, 1991-92/1997-98 & 2001-02.The issues arising for our consideration in these appeals are common, hence, these appeals (sic) heard together and now being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first issue which arises for our consideration and which is common in all the appeals is whether the assessee is entitled Under Section 244A of the Act interest on due interest on the refund if there is a delay in giving the refund to the assessee.3. We have heard the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative Shri V.Sreekumar for the revenue and the ld. Authorised Representatives Shri K. Srinivasan and Shri C. Naresh for the assessee. The ld. D.R.submitted that the CIT(Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to grant interest on the entire amount that became refundable to the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (2008)300ITR310(Coch.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi dated 13-03-2006 for the Assessment Year 2004-05.2. The assessee has taken seven grounds in this appeal, but the only issue involved for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in levying the penalty Under Section 271A of i.e. I.T.Act, 1961.3. The facts of this case are in a narrow compass. The assessee is a civil contractor. He filed the return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 1-11-2004. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that as per the income computation statement filed along with the return of income, the assessee had a turnover of Rs. 69,22,579/- and he had estimated the income at the rate of 5% f the total contract receipts.Subsequently, there was a survey action against the assessee Under Section 133A of the Act on 8-2-2005 and some of the files were impounded. It was found by the Assessing Officer that for the earlier ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (2008)110ITD400(Coch.)
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax(Appeals)-V, Kochi dated 06-01-2004 for the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. Since a common issue is involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee has raised several grounds, but the sole common issue involved in these appeals is against the reopening of the assessments Under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act.3. The facts of the case can be briefly stated as follows: The assessee filed returns of net wealth for the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 on 31-10-1989, 28-12-1990 and 19-12-1991 declaring net wealth of Rs. 28,04,100/-, Rs. 12,23,800/- and Rs. 14,93,600/- respectively. For the assessment year 1989-90, a revised return was filed on 30-11-1990. declaring a net wealth of Rs. 17,22,600/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the net wealth of the assessee a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)II, Kochi dated 1-9-2004 for the assessment year 1993-94.2. The revenue has taken four grounds in this appeal. Ground Nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature. As far as ground No. 3 is concerned, the learned departmental Representative was fair enough to admit that this ground does not arise from the order of the CIT (Appeals). As far as ground No. 2 is concerned, the only issue for our consideration is whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in holding that there was no failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts and hence reopening of the assessment after the period of four years cannot be held to be valid.3. The facts in brief can be stated as follows : The assessee is a banking company and original assessment for the assessment year 1993-94 was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 28-3-1996.Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were under section 147 of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!