Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2008)114TTJLuck965
1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order of CIT-II, Lucknow dt. 19th Oct., 2007 passed under Section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal reads as under: 1. The learned CIT-II, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the learned CIT) erred on facts and in law in refusing to register the appellant society under Section 12AA(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 in the present case.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Educational Society is registered with the Registrar of Societies U.P.w.e.f. 22nd March, 1994, which happens to be the date of its creation.Chandra Dental College and Hospital Safedabad, Barabanki is being run by the society. The assessee society moved an application on 11th April, 2007 in Form 10A (under the Rule 17A) for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act together with a list of its members, revised memorandum of aims and objects, and audit report in Form 10B accompanied b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2008)114TTJLuck706
1. This appeal, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the Order of CIT(A)-II, Lucknow dt. 15th June, 2005 relating to asst. yr. 1996-97.The only effective ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads as under: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in annulling the assessment Order of the AO relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Prem Kumar Rastogi (1980) 124 ITR 381 (All), as the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act had been issued only after taking prior approval of the Addl. CIT, Range-IV and properly served at the residence of the partner of assessee firm.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee furnished return showing income of Rs. 1,04,170 on 29th Nov., 1996 which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 25th Sept., 1997 determining refund payable at Rs. 56,470. The AO observed that the audit has pointed out that against receipts for work done of Rs. 50,96,60...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals) wherein he has held that the assessee is not entitled to exemption for paying gift tax Under Section 5(1)(iib) of the G.T. Act.2. Facts of the case are that the assessee being a donor made two gifts of Rs. 5 lakhs each by cheque on 24.11.97. In response to notice Under Section 16, the assessee filed a return of taxable gifts declaring the value of taxable gifts as nil. In the return the assessee claimed exemption by stating as under: Exemption claimed due to the fact that gifts were made out of NRE accounts and on the date of gifts, the assessee was a NRI and gifts made out of NRE accounts by NRIs are exempt Under Section 5(1) of the G.T. Act as it is the date of gift on which the status has the significance and another fact is that gift is made out of only NRE account where status has no relevance on the date of gift.3. During: the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee argu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A)confirming the levy of penalty for concealment of income Under Section 271(1)(c) for Rs. 2,53,000.2. The facts of the case arc that the assessee is a renowned manufacturer of industrial swing machines. It has filed the return of income disclosing income of Rs. 5.94,864 which was originally processed Under Section 143(1)(a). Subsequently, the case was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed Under Section 143(3) on an income of Rs. 13,28,076. The main addition of Rs. 7.22.740 was in respect of commission on sale of machines claimed to have been paid by the assessee to various technically skilled workers through whom the machines were sold. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 7,26,613 under the head "commission'. The A.O. required the assessee to file the details from which it was noted by the A.O. that out of total sum of commis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2008)115TTJLuck402
1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order of CIT(A)-I, Agra dt. 7th Sept., 2006 in confirming the penalty of Rs. 6,31,800 imposed under Section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 2000-01.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partner in M/s R.P. Fragrances, which is engaged in the business of perfumes and derives income from the partnership firm and other sources. For the asst. yr. 2000-01, the assessee filed the return on 30th Nov., 2000 declaring an income of Rs. 5,94,641. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on 17th Sept., 2001. The assessee had some # credits in his account amounting to Rs. 9,00,000 received through bank drafts. Para 2 of the letter dt. 29th April, 2002 reads as under: 2. I had some credits in my accounts of Rs. 9,00,000 (rupees nine lakhs) in asst. yr. 2000-01 received through bank drafts duly recorded. On seeking confirmations for my income-tax purposes from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2008)113ITD1Luck
1. The assessee has filed this appeal for asst. yr. 2004-05 against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 17th Feb., 2006.2. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs out of sum of Rs. 13,52,784 received by the assessee on voluntary retirement from the services of RBI.3. The relevant facts are that assessee is an employee of RBI. The RBI announced VRS known as Optional Employees Retirement Scheme (hereinafter to be referred in short as OERS). During the year, the assessee opted for OERS. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 13,52,784 from RBI under the said OERS. The assessee filed return of income claiming exemption of Rs. 5 lakhs as per provisions of Section 10(10C) of the Act. The AO did not accept the said claim of the assessee on the ground that RBI itself vide its letter dt. 31st Aug., 2005, a copy of which is placed at pp. 11 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2008)114TTJLuck416
1. This appeal, filed by the assesses, is directed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Kanpur, dt. 31st March, 2003 realating to asst. yr. 1997-98. 1. That the learned CIT (A) II has erred in law and on facts in upholding the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, without properly the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, without properly applying his mind to the fact that the proceedings leading to the above assessment are without jurisdiction and void as the conditions precedent for acquiring jurisdiction under the said Section are absent in assessee's case.3. Vide above ground, the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 and has also challenged the decision of CIT(A) in upholding the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, as valid.4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 28th Nov., 1997 declaring a loss of Rs. 30,000. The assessee has also filed Form No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer passed Under Section 158BD on 28.03.2006.2. The facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation Under Section 132(1) was carried out in the case of Dr. D.C. Srivastava and Dr. Saroj Srivastava at B-55, Mandir Marg, Mahanagar, Lucknow on 25.09.1996. During the course of search, several valuables and cash was found and seized as detailed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer initiated proceeding Under Section 15 SBC against the assessee and completed it the block assessment under that Section vide his order dated 25.09.il997 within the limitation of one year. The Assessing Officer computed the. undisclosed income of the assessee in that order at Rs. 52,39,720/-. The assessee filed appeal before I.T.A.T. as provided in the relevant provisions applicable for the searches carried out prior to 01.01.97. Tribunal cancelled the assessment on the ground that no sear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2008)117TTJLuck42
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the ld. CIT(A) should have held that the notice Under Section 148 dated 29.3.04 issued by ACIT. Range IV Lucknow was devoid of proper jurisdiction and as such ab-initio void. Consequently the Id CIT(A) should have annulled the reassessment order Under Section 144/148 dated 24.3.05 passed by ITO 1(1). Lucknow for AY. 97-98. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the ld. CIT (A) should have held that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply against the statue the (i.e. I.T Act in the appellant's case) and consequently the notice Under Section 148 dated 29.3.01 issued by ACTT range IV. Lucknow was devoid of proper jurisdiction, even though the appellant inadvertently failed to challenge the jurisdiction of ACTT. range IV, Lucknow during the course of assessment proceedings for AY. 2001-02. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) should have held that the notice Under Section 148 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against confirmation of penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- Under Section 158BFA(2). The assessee has raised following grounds: 1. That the L.d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- levied Under Section 158 BFA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That while sustaining the penalty the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kanpur Jailed to consider and appreciate that the addition of Rs. 5,55,000/- made Under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 represented share application money and was offered for (sic) voluntarily in order to buy peace of mind and to avoid protracted litigation and with a clear stipulation that no penal provisions shall he initiated against the Appellant Company. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-], Kanpur failed to consider and appreciate that every addition to the returned undisclosed income shall not warrant levy of penalty Und...
Tag this Judgment!