Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2008)113TTJCtk906
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT, Bhubaneswar dt. 15th Dec., 2006.2. In this case the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned CIT has erred both in law and on facts in cancelling the registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act, to the appellant society. The opinion of the learned CIT as given in his order is totally incorrect, unjustified and against the facts of the case. That, in response to the show-cause notice point No. 2, issued by the learned CIT, the Authorised Representative of the assessee clarified the nature charitable activities carried out by the assessee and also submitted the documentary evidence in support of its claim which was not disputed by the learned CIT. So the cancellation of registration does not arise and registration under Section 12AA to be restored. 3. That the learned CIT failed to look into the statement of oath recorded under Section 131 (of Financial Advisor) properly in which he (FA) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2007)108TTJCtk678
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A)-I, Bhubaneswar dt. 3rd Sept., 2004 for the asst. yr. 1999-2000.2. The grounds of appeal filed along with Form No. 36 are not in conformity with the Rule 8 of ITAT Rules. On the direction of the Bench, the assessee has filed consolidated grounds of appeal on 29th May, 2006 which are as under: (1) For that upholding of Rs. 8 lakhs as notional income in respect of interest on Orissa Construction Corporation Ltd., (OCC) @ 16 per cent per annum on Rs. 50 lakhs is bad in law and untenable as OCC while settling the loan repayment, did not pay interest to appellant. (2) For that the upholding of the disallowance of Rs. 15,98,612 relating to foreign exchange fluctuation loss incurred on account of contract with foreign buyers M/s Sinonex is unjustified, as the assessee company has suffered such loss on account of export of chrome ore, to M/s Sinonex the export of which is the business of the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2007)106ITD45Ctk
1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Sambalpur dated 26-3-2002 for the assessment year 1998-99.2. The Division Bench hearing this case had made a reference to the Hon'ble President I.T.A.T. Under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for consideration of Special Bench. Accordingly, the Hon'ble President, I.T.A.T. was pleased to constitute Special Bench of three members to consider the following question: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per provisions of Section 55(2)(b)(i) the assessee is entitled to opt for the fair market value of an asset as on 01.04.1981 OR the valuation arrived at by the department by applying the cost inflation index method in the reverse direction on the valuation of assets as on 1.4.1987, was the correct method for arriving at fair market value of assets as on 1.4.1981.3. Vide subsequent order dated 18.07.2006, the Hon'ble President, I.T.A.T. has further directed the who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2007)107TTJCtk40
1. These cross-appeals are filed by the Revenue and the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), Bhubaneswar, passed on 28th Dec, 2001 in respect of the asst. yr. 1997-98. These appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The grounds taken by the assessee in ITA No. 125/Ctk/2000 are as under: 1. That the order dt. 28th Dec, 2001 of the learned GIT(A)-I, Bhubaneswar, is unjustified, arbitrary, prejudged, against the weight of evidence on record and bad in law. 2. That the rejection of the applicability of the principles of mutuality as claimed by the appellant on arbitrary assumption of the learned AO and confirmed by the CIT(A)-I, Bhubaneswar, is bad in law and not evidenced. 3. That the rejection of books of account under Section 145 of the IT Act, 1961, is bad in law and not evidenced. 4. That the rejection of the standard accounting procedure adopted by the club is bad in law and not evidenced. 5. That the capital r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2006)101TTJCtk948
1. These six appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the learned CIT(A)-II, Bhubaneswar, relating to asst. yrs.1994-95 to 1998-99 and 2000-01. Since common issues are involved all the six appeals are disposed of in this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 1(a). That the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on fact and law, in holding that the loss of Rs. 4,86,70,639 on account of valuation of non-moving stores and spares, is not allowable as revenue expenditure. (b) That the learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the claim of Rs. 4,86,70,639 on account of valuation of non-moving stores and spares.3. The facts in brief are that the AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 4,86,70,639 on account of valuation of non-moving stores and spares holding that these items are neither trading items nor moving stores and spares. According to the AO, the loss can be considered as capital loss. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance holding basically that the loss ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2005)95TTJCtk186
1. The appellant-firm, namely, M/s L.N. Export, has preferred this second appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Cuttack, dt. 25th Nov., 2004, wherein the CIT(A) has partly allowed the first appeal filed before him by the appellant.2. This firm, M/s L.N. Export, has been constituted since 7th April, 1993, consisting of 3 partners, namely, Smt. Pramodini Sahoo, Smt.Anita Dash and Shri Prabodh Kumar Dash. A search was conducted on 23rd June, 2000, at the residential and business premises of one Shri Bhagirathi Sahoo. Consequent upon that search a survey was conducted in the business premises of the partnership firm where Smt. Pramodini Sahoo is a partner having l/3rd share. As a result of the survey under Section 133A made in the business premises of the firm, the Department impounded books of account and the AO completed the assessment under Section 158BC(c) on the firm at an undisclosed income of Rs. 73,26,112 for the block period. The assessee-firm filed nil income under Section 158...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2006)99TTJCtk316
1. Assessment years involved are 1990-91 to 1997-98. In this bunch of sixteen appeals eight appeals filed by the assessee and eight appeals filed by the Department, the assessee is one and all the eight assessment years relating to all the appeals are same. Since cross appeals have been filed both by the assessee and by the Department and identical issues are involved, it has been deemed proper to pass one common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The learned Authorised Representatives of the assessee have filed some paper books in order to facilitate the Bench to be acquainted with the facts and the legal points involved in all the appeals which are narrated as under : (a) Page 1 relates to the details of expenses disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. From the same it transpires that for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92 the assessee is in appeal against disallowance of interest on refinan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2005)279ITR200Ctk
1. In these appeals for the six successive years filed by the appellant/assessee, more or less common issues are involved. However, so far as the first four years, i.e., asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 1999-2000 are concerned, the assessee has also taken up the preliminary issue of challenging the validity of the reopening proceedings under Section 147 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The assessee is a public limited company formed under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, with the object of working as a recognised stock exchange in Orissa and controlling and regulating the operations of transactions and broking activities in stocks and shares. The assessee duly applied for registration as a charitable institution and has also been granted registration under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961, by the CIT, Bhubaneswar. In asst. yr. 1992-93, the AO had tried to disallow the claim of the assessee towards exemption under Section 11, but in the first appeal, the learned CIT(A) reversed the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2005)92TTJCtk1199
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 7th June, 2002, for the asst. yr. 1990-91, in the matter of deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 58,08,600.The assessee has also filed a cross-objection alleging the order of the learned CIT(A) on various counts for his failure to record some particular findings. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in law and on the facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 58,08,600 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and holding the assessee's explanation as bona fide when the assessee had not furnished any conclusive document in support of installation and erection and when the assessee had, in its letter No. SE-50: 1229 dt. 25th Oct., 1990, to the District Industries Centre, Sambalpur, had stated the date of commissioning as 8th Oct., 1990. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2005)92TTJCtk518
1. These are the cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the order of the CIT (A), dt. 31st Oct., 2003, for the asst.yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 in the matter of order passed by the AO under Section 143(3)/251 of the IT Act. The grievance of both assessee and Revenue revolves around treatment of interest income during implementation of project and prior to commencement of business, received by the assessee in respect of deposit made with the bank out of borrowed funds for opening LC in favour of plant suppliers and also deposit made out of surplus funds available with the assessee out of money received on equity and utilised loan funds.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused: The brief facts of the case are that the appellant- company is a Government sector undertaking and was in the process of erecting an integrated steel plant during the years under consideration. For the asst. yr.1995-96, the assessee filed return showing nil income which w...
Tag this Judgment!