Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2003)79TTJLuck416
1. In this appeal against the order of CIT(A)-I, Lucknow, dt. 27th March, 1998, for the asst. yr. 1995-96, the assessee has taken as many as eight grounds. However, since these grounds are in the nature of arguments, we do not consider it necessary to repeat the same. In ground Nos. I to IV, the only issue involved relates to the confirmation of the disallowance of Rs. 1,31,566 being the interest of amount debited to P&L a/c paid on loans taken by the assessee. In ground Nos. V to VII, the issue relates to the sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 31,405 out of telephone expenses.2. Shri Kanchan Kaushal, the learned counsel for the assessee, who appeared on behalf of the assessee made by detailed submissions in support of the grounds taken by the assessee, whereas Shri Prasenjit Singh, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO and that of the learned CIT(A).3. The assessee-firm in its P&L a/c showed expenses of Rs. 1,31,566 as interest payment. This int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)82ITD176Luck
1. These eight appeals involving similar issues and filed by the same group of assessees, are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Shri S.K. Garg, F.C.A. and Shri Amit Shukla, advocates, have appeared in these appeals on behalf of the assessees, whereas Shri Prasenjit Singh, senior Departmental Representative represented the Department.3. ITA No. 6/Alld/1999 has been filed by the assessee, namely, Commercial Motors Finance Ltd. Kanpur, against the order of CIT(A)-II, Kanpur, dt. 2nd Feb., 1999, for the asst. yr. 1994-95. ITA Nos. 7 to 12 (six appeals) have been filed by the other assessee, namely, M/s Kailash Motors Finance Ltd., Kanpur against a combined order of CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dt. 2nd Feb., 1999, for six assessment years i.e., asst. yrs. 1992-93 to 1997-98. ITA No. 4/Luc/2001 has been filed by M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. Kanpur, against the order of CIT(A), Lucknow, dt. 22nd Jan., 2001, for the asst. yr. 1996-97. It may be pointed out that whereas t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2004)89TTJLuck669
These seven appeals have been filed by the assessee-appellant, namely, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, (hereafter referred to as UPSIDC) against the combined order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 8-1-1998 for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1995-96.The assessee has taken seven identical grounds in all these appeals, which challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the applicability of the provisions of section 194C and consequently upholding the liability of the assessee to be charged under sections 201 & 201(1A).During the course of hearing of the appeals, the assessee- corporation have also taken additional ground (Ground No. 8), which runs as under : "8. Because the order dated 30-4-1997 passed by the Income Tax Officer-TDS, Ward 3(7) was wholly illegal, as initiation of related proceedings as also conclusion thereof was beyond the time-limit that could be said to be available to him (Income Tax Officer-TDS) for this purpose, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)81ITD173Luck
1. These seven appeals have been filed by the assessee-appellant, namely, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, (for short - UPSIDC) against the combined order of CIT(A) dated 8-1-1998 for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1995-96.2. The assessee has taken seven identical grounds in all these appeals, which challenge the order of the CIT(A) confirming the applicability of the provisions of Section 194-C and consequently upholding the liability of the assessee to be charged under Sections 201 & 201(1A).3. During the course of hearing of the appeals, the assessee-corporation have also taken additional ground (Ground No. 8), which runs as under : 8. Because the order dated 30-4-1997 passed by the Income-tax Officer - TDS, Ward 3(7) was wholly illegal, as initiation of related proceedings as also conclusion thereof of was beyond the time limit that could be said to be available to him (ITO-TDS) for this purpose, and on a due consideration of the overall scheme ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)74TTJLuck848
These two appeals by the different assessees relating to the same group of assessee and involving common grounds are being decided by a common order.Originally, the assessee took several grounds to challenge the block assessment order dated 30-10-1996. However, finally the assessee has pressed only following grounds : "1. Because the learned assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in treating the following : alleged unexplained investment in U.T.I. C.G.G.F. Units Scheme, 1986, purchased in the name of appellant's minor daughter Km. Priyanka Jain.alleged unexplained investment in Vijaya Bank cash certificates of Rs. 6,800 and Rs. 9,500 purchased in the name of minor daughter Km.Priyanka Jain.3. Because there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction in the assessing officer in the matter of passing the impugned order by reasons of: (a) non-issuance/non-service of notice under section 158BC as per the provisions of law; (b) that the valuation report which was made the basis of additio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. These two appeals by the different assessees relating to the same group of assessee and involving common grounds are being decided by a common order.2. Originally, the assessee took several grounds to challenge the block assessment order dt. 30th Oct., 1996. However, finally the assessee has pressed only following grounds : "1. Because the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in treating the following : (a) Rs. 40,000 alleged unexplained investment in U.T.I. C.G.G.F.. Units Scheme, 1986, purchased in the name of appellant's minor daughter Km. Priyanka Jain. (b) Rs. 16,300 alleged unexplained investment in Vijaya Bank cash certificates of Rs. 6,800 and Rs. 9,500 purchased in the name of minor daughter Km. Priyanka Jain. (d) Rs. 10,90,200alleged unexplained investment in residential house. 3. Because there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction in the AO in the matter of passing the impugned order by reasons of: (a) non-issuance/non-service of notice under Section 158BC as per the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)82ITD498Luck
1. These ten appeals involving a common issue, relating to two different assessees and pertaining to different assessment years which have been heard together are being disposed of by this common order. It may be pointed out that common grounds have been taken by the assessee in these appeals. For the sake of example, the grounds taken in ITA No.1659/A/96 are being reproduced here : 2. That the learned lower Court erred in not allowing standard deduction from the salary income received from M/s Kohli Bros. Colour Lab. (P) Ltd. 3. That the learned lower Court erred in facts and legal aspects of the case in holding that there is no relationship between the employee and employer. 4. That the appellant is working under supervision and control of Board of Directors and as such is an employee of the company and so standard deduction should have been allowed. 5. That the judicial decision cited by the learned lower Court is distinguishable and as such should not have been followed. 6. That t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)76TTJLuck69
The appellant-assessee has filed appeal against the order of the assessing officer dated 30-8-1996. Shri Kanchan Kaushal, and Mridul Agrawal, F.C.As. and Yogesh Agarwal, advocate attended on behalf of the appellant-assessee, whereas Shri Ram Lal, Departmental Representative represented the revenue.In brief, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure under section 132 was carried out in the group consisting of (i) Disinfecto Chemical Industries (P) Ltd., (ii) Disinfacto Chemical Industries, Prop. Smt. Padmawati Agrawal, wife of Shri B.K. Agrawal, (iii) Shri B.K. Agrawal, and (iv) Shri Karunesh Agrawal son of Shri B.K. Agrawal and Smt. Radhika Singhal wife of Shri Karunesh Agrawal. Shri B.K.Agrawal is working as chemist and also looking after the business affairs of M/s. Disinfacto Chemical Industries, Prop. Smt. Padmawati Agrawal, wife of Shri B.K. Agrawal. Shri Karunesh Agrawal is also getting salary, interest and commission from M/s. Disinfacto Chemical Industries. Smt. Radh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. The appellant-assessee has filed appeal against the order of the AO dt. 30th Aug., 1996. Shri Kanchan Kaushal, and Mridul Agrawal, F.C.As.and Yogesh Agarwal, advocate attended on behalf of the appellant-assesses, whereas Shri Ram Lal, Departmental Representative represented the Revenue.2. In brief, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure under Section 132 was carried out in the group consisting of (i) Disinfecto Chemical Industries (P) Ltd., (ii) Disinfacto Chemical Industries, Prop. Smt. Padmawati Agrawal, wife of Shri B.K. Agrawal, (iii) Shri B.K. Agrawal, and (iv) Shri Karunesh Agrawal son of Shri B.K. Agrawal and Smt. Radhika Singhal wife of Shri Karunesh Agrawal. Shri B.K.Agrawal is working as chemist and also looking after the business affairs of M/s. Disinfacto Chemical Industries, Prop. Smt. Padmawati Agrawal, wife of Shri B.K. Agrawal. Shri Karunesh Agrawal is also getting salary, interest and commission from M/s. Disinfacto Chemical Industries. Smt. Radhika Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)80ITD370Luck
1. These are 6 appeals by the assessee against a combined order of Ld.DCIT (A), Kanpur dated 28-4-1997 for the assessment years 1985-86, 86-87, 87-38, 88-89, 89-90 and 90-91. The facts concerning these appeals are common and identical grounds have been taken by the assessee in all the 6 appeals. Hence, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being decided by a common order.2. Shri S.K. Garg, F.C.A., has appeared on behalf of the assessee-appellant whereas Shri Shambhoo Chopra, the Ld. Sr. D.R.standing counsel, appeared for the department in all these appeals.3. The assessee-appellant has taken 6 grounds in these appeals but these grounds are very elaborate and are also argumentative. Hence we do not consider it proper to reproduce the same. Instead, we will take up the issues involved in these grounds.4. Before taking up the issues involved in the grounds of appeal, we consider it proper to state the background and the facts leading to the present litigation which are narra...
Tag this Judgment!