Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 30.06.1998 for the assessment year 1995-96 on the following grounds: 1. For that the CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance made under the head subscription. 2. For that the CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowances made under the head lease rent on leased back assets. 3. Without prejudice to the ground No. 2 above, the CIT(A) is not justified in holding the transaction of sale and lease back assets as genuine and for commercial purpose when these transactions dare nothing but colourable device to avoid payment of tax as envisaged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court' decision in the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. v. CTO 154 ITR 148. 4. For that the CIT(A) eared in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 16,84,002 made under the head foreign travel expenses when the assessee failed to prove that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusivel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Gau.)455
1. The appeal is directed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the learned C1T(A).2. The AO while passing assessment order under Section 158BD r/w Section 158BC(b) and Section 144 of the Act vide order dt. 25th Sept., 2003 has arrived at the conclusion for the block assessment of Mr.Peter's Thorose, the order being passed treating him as the real owner of St. Peter's Higher Secondary School and College by virtue of both direct and circumstantial evidence.3. While arriving at the conclusion on the basis of statement of Miss Dancy Dora Syiem, officiating vice principal under Section 132(4) of the Act and statement of Smt. T. Blah under Section 131 of the Act recorded on 12th Nov., 2001 and seized documents.4. The assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) has observed as under: In my considered opinion financial control would imply ownership of property or the acquiring of rights in such property, the receipt of income from such property and it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. On account of difference between the Hon'ble Members of Gauhati Bench of I.T.A.T., the above appeals were referred to me Under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). In fact, I find that there is no difference in five appeals, viz., I.T.A. Nos. 389 & 390 (Gau)/96 and I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 17 (Gau)/96, Both the Members have agreed on orders proposed by the Ld. Judicial Member and above appeals have already been disposed off.1.1. The Ld. Members did not agree even on questions which were required to be referred covering points of difference between the Members. The Ld. Judicial Member proposed three questions to which the Ld. Accountant Member did not agree. He has proposed 10 different questions. With the consent of the learned representatives of the parties, I framed the following question covering the controversy for hearing of appeals: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the consolidated order of C.I. T. (A) dated 25.8.1995 is required to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. In this appeal there is difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench. Therefore, the following question is referred to the Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Under Section 255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961, for the opinion of the Third Member. The question framed is as under: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Ld. CIT had erred in rejecting the application of the assessee for grant of registration Under Section 12A of the Act for the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 ?(Hemant Sausarkar) (B.R. Kaushik)JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati, dated 08-05-2006 Under Section 12AA of the I.T.Act, 1961.2. The assessee has objected to registration of application Under Section 12A filed on 30-03-2004 seeking registration with effect from the financial year 2001-2002 relevant to the assessment year 2002-2003 as per his order dated 01-10-2004. It has been c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Gau.)426
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned CIT, Guwahati, dt. 8th May, 2006 under Section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee has objected to registration of application under Section 12A filed on 30th March, 2004 seeking registration with effect from the financial year 2001-02 relevant to the asst. yr. 2002-03 as per his order dt. 1st/13th Oct., 2004. It has been contended that there was nothing in the order dt. 1st/13th Oct., 2004 in conformity with Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the IT Act to show that the prayer of the assessee for registration with effect from earlier year as discussed above was considered by the learned CIT. The observation of the learned CIT that he could not allow registration under Section 12AA with effect from the asst. yr. 2002-03 because it would amount to two orders under Section 12AA in the same case has also been challenged. It has thus been contended that the learned CIT erred in law and in fact in not registering the appellant society under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
1. On account of difference between the Ld. Members of Gauhati Bench of I.T.A.T. the following issue has been referred to me under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Whether the learned CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee without considering all the relevant facts and without obtaining the report of the A.O. on the necessary enquiries directed to be made by his predecessor? 2. The facts of the case are that a search was carried on the premises of Mr. A.A. Thorose, who was admittedly owner of St. Peter's School, Shilling, on 26-09-2001. During the course of said search, statement under Section 132(4) of Ms. D.D. Syiem was recorded. She claimed to be a teacher and after 1987 full-fledged Vice-Principal of the School. Mr.A.A. Thorose was stated to be the owner of the institution. As regards ownership of the St. Peter's College, she claimed that she along with Mrs. T. Blah was the owner of college having 50% share each...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2005)93TTJ(Gau.)1
allegedly not servedThe AO completed best judgment assessment applying provisions of section 44AD(1) simply on the ground that the assessee-contractor did not produce books of account, bills, vouchers, etc., in response to notices under section 142(1) said to have been served on assessee and the assessee failed to respond to the same. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) and contended that he was maintaining books of account and his case did not come within the purview of section 44AD of the Act and further that no notice under section 142(1) was served on him. The CIT (A) observed that mere maintenance of books of account did not give immunity to the assessee from the obligation of the provisions of section 44AD because as per provision of section 44AD(6), the assessee could have claimed lower rate of profit than prescribed in the aforesaid section provided accounts were maintained as required under section 44AA and duly audited in terms of section 44AB of the Act. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2004)84TTJ(Gau.)329
1. These are the two appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT (A) for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 dated 27/9/2000 and 10/8/2000 respectively. The common effective grounds of appeal in both the appeals are as under: - a) The CIT (A) erred in directing to allow exemption under Section 10(2A) read with Section 80HHC on share income from a partnership firm in which the assessee was not a partner. b) The CIT (A) erred in directing to allow exemption Under Section 10(2A) relying on the decisions which either relate to pre-amendment position or not squarely applicable in the present case.2. Since both the grounds of appeal are correlated and as the facts and circumstance in both the years under appeal are same, they all are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience.3. The brief facts of the case are that Sri Radha Krishna Jallan is a partner in the firm known as M/S Rock International, Calcutta. In order to meet his capital contribution in the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2004)88ITD96(Gau.)
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1993-94 against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 17th March, 1997. The three grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are as under : "1. For that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting Rs. 2,82,792, Rs. 2,805, Rs. 25,911, Rs. 2,27,590 out of disallowance of Rs. 15,22,807 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure. 2. For that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in directing the AO to delete the sum of Rs. 25,23,511 being capital receipt from the total income of the assessee. 3. For that the CIT(A) was not justified in directing the AO set off the losses for asst. yr. 1992-93 against the appellant's income for asst. yr. 1993-94." 2. In respect of the first ground of appeal, the relevant facts are as follows. The AO observed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 17,72,807 on account of repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery. After verification of the bills and accounts, he found that the entire expenditure represents capit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (2004)267ITR37(Gau.)
1. The appeal by the Department in ITA No. 188/Gau/1993 has been filed against the order dt. 29th Oct., 1992, of the Dy. CIT(A) for the asst.yr. 1988-89 and the appeals in ITA Nos. 11 to 13/Gau/1996, for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1985-86 have been filed against the consolidated order dt. 25th Sept., 1995, of the CIT(A). Since identical grounds of appeal are involved, the appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake or convenience. The following grounds of appeal have been raised : "For that the Dy. CIT(A) erred in cancelling the protective assessment and holding that no part of the income of the appellant is assessable in the hands of Sri Ajit Barkataky and Shri Krishna Kanta Barkataky." "1. For that the CIT(A) had erred in law and in facts holding that there is valid HUF in existence assessable to tax and cancelling the protective assessment. 2. For that the CIT(A) had erred in law and in facts in holding that the FDRs in the balance sheet and its income will be co...
Tag this Judgment!