Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Kol.)577
1. The above two appeals are filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A)-XL, Kolkata dated 12.12.2007 relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively in the case of the assessee.2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are identical we have decided the same by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. We first take up the ITA NO.79/Kol/2008 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. For that on the fact and in the circumstances the ld. CIT(A) was wrong in sustaining addition under Section 43B and Section 36(i)(v)(a) of the Act on account of Provident Fund contribution towards. Aggregating to Rs. 1,29,13,290 together with arithmetical mistake in disallowance to the extent of Rs. 4,08,181 and thereby total disallowance sustained was Rs. 1,33,21,471/-(Rs. 1,29,13,290 + 4,08,181). 2. For that on the fact and circumstances the ld. CIT(A) wrongly and arbitrarily disallowed payment of Rs,67,77.210/- to the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)301ITR171(Kol.)
1. In the above mentioned 5 cases, the hon'ble President, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, constituted a Special Bench under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The common issue involved in all these appeals is with regard to disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act.Sri S.K. Tulsiyan, advocate, appearing on behalf of (i) M/s. Kenaram Saha & Subhash Saha and (ii) Nadeem Iqbal led the arguments from the assessees' side. He argued the matter at great length. His arguments/submissions can be summarized as follows: 2. That Section 40A(3) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1968, with effect from April 1, 1968. In the memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 1968, it was explained that the purpose behind the enactment of the provisions of Section 40A(3) was to curb wasteful and lavish expenditure and to counter tax evasion. It was felt by the Government that the assessees claim expenditure incurred in cash which frustrate proper investigation by the Departm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Kol.)822
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of the CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata giving relief to the assessee.The assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of low ash metallurgical coke at its plant at Khambhalia, Gujarat. For the assessment year in appeal, the assessee filed its return for asst. yr.2004-05 on 11th Oct., 2004 showing total income of Rs. 22,10,62,757.Subsequently, the assessee company filed a revised return showing net total income at Rs. 21,30,91,725. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment Under Section 143(3) of the Act, and assessment was completed on 29th Dec, 2006 at the figure of total income of Rs. 28,21,61,831 after making various additions. The assessee went in appeal against the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee against some of the additions made by the AO and sustained some of the additions. The Department is in appeal against some of the additions deleted by the CIT(A).2. Whether on the facts and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Kol.)390
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 6th March, 2007 of the CIT(A)-XIV, Kolkata pertaining to asst. yr. 2003-04.In this appeal by the assessee, the following grounds are raised: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO passed under Section 143(3) substituting the value adopted by the stamp valuation authorities as the full value of consideration received of Rs. 3,34,42,244 as against Rs. 2,34,00,000 recorded in the record of sale. 2. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the course of assessment, appellant had challenged the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities and the AO was informed of fair market value adopted under Section 50C where the Department had a right to pre-emptive purchase in lieu of the purchaser.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal filed by the assessee, as narrated at the time of hearing and also borne out by records are that the assessee individual owned a property No. 63/2/C The Mall, Kanpur, U.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)112ITD57(Kol.)
1. This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble President, I.T.A.T. in the case of M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. vide I.T.A. No. 1541 (Cal)/2000 for assessment year 1997-98 to consider the following questions: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 38,64,1091-debited to year's revenue account as value of stores written off by holding that it is for the A.O. to prove that consumable stores had either not been used or individually costed less than Rs. 5,0001-ignoring, in the process, the findings in assessment that claim could not be established on record. (2) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of building, furniture, fixture & fittings thereby contravening enunciation by the jurisdictional High Court to the defect that prohibition against guest house expenses s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Kol.)45
This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble President, Tribunal in the case of M/s ITC Ltd. vide ITA No. 1541/Cal/2000 for asst. yr. 1997-98 to consider the following questions: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 38,64,109 debited to year's revenue account as value of stores written off by holding that it is for the AO to prove that consumable stores had cither not been used or individually costed less than Rs. 5,000 ignoring, in the process, the findings in assessment that claim could not be established on record. (2) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble C1T(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 5.00,000 on account of building, furniture, fixture and fittings thereby contravening enunciation by the jurisdictiorial High Court to the defect (sic-effect) that prohibition against guest house expenses stipulated in Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
1. The appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 and the appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2001-02 arise out of a single order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, Kolkata, dated 28-2-2007.As these appeals involve common issues, for the sake of convenience, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. There are five grounds of appeal in this year. All the grounds relate to only one issue, i.e., rejection of the appellant's claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) that it did not have a PE in India in the relevant financial year, and that the profits earned by the appellant were not taxable in India.3. At the time of hearing before us, the assessee's learned Counsel submitted that the appellant company was incorporated in Netherlands, and its entire control and management was in that country. As such, the appellant was a foreign company within the meaning of Section 2(23A) of the Act. The appellant had undertaken a sub-contract for dredging, which was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Kol.)121
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dt. 29th March, 2007 for the asst. yr. 2004-05 in the case of the assessee.2. The assessee has raised the following issues in its grounds of appeal: 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was unjustified in adopting the fair market value of the appellant's 1/4th share in the immovable property at 47, Golflinks, New Delhi at Rs. 15,02,907 as against Rs. 18,40,244 estimated by the Registered Valuer. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was unjustified in not striking down the reference to the Valuation Officer made by the AO under Section 55A of the Act and was not justified in upholding the reference under Section 55A(2)(b) even though the said provision was not applicable. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant having adopted the fair market value of the transferred immovable property as p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
1. In pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8667-8668 of 1997 arising out of Income Tax Reference Nos.97 of 1994 & 160 of 1992 in R.A. Nos. 1036/C of 1992& 259/C of 1991, these two appeals were taken up for hearing on 23-4-2007, 4-5-2007 and 21-5-2007. The Learned Senior Advocate for the revenue was asked to file rebuttal in regard to documents filed by the assessee's counsel within 10 days i.e., on or before 14-5-2007 but he prayed for one months more time to file the same. Till 21-5-2007, i.e., the 3rd date of hearing, nothing has been filed. As such we proceeded to pass the order assuming that the revenue does not have anything to file further and dictated the order on 9-7-2007 after waiting for about more than a month. Even till today, i.e., signing of the order, nothing has been filed from the side of the revenue.2. These two appeals pertaining to assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were earlier heard and disposed of by the Tribunal in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
1. The above two appeals preferred by the assessee and the above two appeals preferred by the revenue and the two cross objections filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the learned CIT-XL, Kolkata dated 23-3-2005 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively on the following grounds: Ground 1: Adjudication of issues not raised by the Asstt. CIT of Income-tax, Circle 57 (The AO). 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in suo motu adjudicating that the Roaming Charges, pass through charges, Inter operator charges and Port charges ("Interconnect charges") are liable for- TDS under Section 194C even though the assessing officer has not held so in the order passed under Section 201(1)/201 (1A) read with Section 194.1 of the Act and the applicability of Section 194C was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The appellant prays that the order holding applicability ...
Tag this Judgment!