Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2005)97TTJLuck342
1. This matter has been referred to me under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act on account of difference of opinion between Members of Lucknow Bench who heard this appeal. The controversy in the reference is as under:- "Whether the income received by the assessee from letting out the building of the firm to M/s. Deva Nursing Home (P) Ltd. is assessable as income from house property as concluded by the ld. CIT(A) or is income from business as claimed by the assessee?" 2. The assessee company constructed a building complex with intention to carry on business of hotel, restaurant as per main object of the company. However, the building constructed was found to be far away from Railway Station and otherwise in remote area and it was felt that carrying on business of hotel was not feasible. Therefore, the Board of Directors of the company as per Resolution dated 12.3.1989 unanimously decided that company will run a hospital or a nursing home either under its own supervision or may lease ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2006)100ITD113Luck
1. The Department has filed this appeal for the assessment year 1995-96 against the order of the CIT(A) dated 15-10-1999, on the following ground: That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,43,094 as unexplained investment in the construction of flats, without appreciating the act that such addition was made on the basis of valuation report of a technical expert namely valuation office.2. We have carefully considered the submission of the Id.Representatives of the parties and have perused the orders of the authorities below.3. The assessee is a Private Limited Company, involved in construction of commercial building at Khurram Nagar. The assessee disclosed total cost of construction of the Commercial Building at Khurram Nagar, Lucknow, at Rs. 3,66,07,977 covering the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The Registered Valuer determined the total cost of construction at Rs. 3,69,15,900. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the District Valuation Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2005)94TTJLuck767
1. The assessee, which is a private limited company, has come up in appeal before us against the order dt. 9th April, 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A)-II, Kanpur for the asst. yr. 2000-01, on a number of grounds which fall in two categories, one relating to the very validity of the assessment on the ground of jurisdiction of the Addl. CIT to act as 'AO' and pass the assessment order dt. 10th Feb., 2003, and the other relating to the merits of additions/variations as stand comprised in the said assessment order. As the legal grounds go to the very root of the assessment, we take up first of all the same for our adjudication; such grounds are reproduced hereunder : (b) the Addl. CIT, along with the Dy, CITs/ACITs and ITOs stood vested with the concurrent jurisdiction over the assessee, in terms of the order No. Chief CIT/KNP/S&P/32/2110-02 dt. 31st July, 2001, as passed by the Hon'ble Chief CIT Kanpur; (c) in the present case the Addl. CIT vide his order sheet entries dt. 22nd Jan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2005)94ITD70Luck
1. These appeals are filed by the Department against the orders of ld.Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals) both dated 5^th December, 1997. The assessee(s) has filed cross objections supporting the orders of the ld.CGT(A).2. In both the appeals, on the basis of the facts, the issue involved is identical, i.e., whether the assessee(s) is liable for gift tax under Section 4(1)(c) of the Gift Tax Act in regard to deemed gift on the notional amount of interest on the interest fee advances/loans lying with the sister concern(s) inspite of an admitted fact that there is no covenant or mutual agreement between the creditor and the debitor for payment of interest. Therefore, we, dispose of both these appeals alongwith the cross objections by this common order for the sake of convenience.3. In order to discuss, the issue involved in these appeals, we state the facts in detail in the case of M/s. Sahara India (Firm) (G.T.A. No.15/Alld/1998). We may state that the ld. CGT(A) has also passed a detai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2006)99TTJLuck801
1. This appeal of the Department is directed against order dt. 17th Feb., 1994 passed by CIT(A)-III, Lucknow, by which appeal of the assessee for asst. yr. 1991-92 was disposed of. 1(i) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the AO to assess the capital gains on sale of shares to partners at Rs. 9,66,39,467 as against the capital gains of Rs. 12,60,04,004 which were computed correctly by the AO, in the circumstances of the case. 1(ii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the AO to allow business loss of Rs. 8,66,99,100 on sale of shares to partners, which was correctly disallowed by the AO, in the circumstances of the case. 1(iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in accepting the assessee's claim that the shares transferred to partners had been converted into stock-in-trade, when the alleged conversion was not followed by the requisite conduct expected of a de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2005)94ITD496Luck
1. The cross appeals directed by the assessee and the Revenue and the cross objection directed by the assessee arise out of the order of the ld. CIT(A) regarding deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act pertaining to assessment year 1989-90. For the sake of convenience, we will first take up the appeal directed by the assessee.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has been one of the directors of Kothari Products Limited and in that capacity he has been earning Incomes under various heads like managerial remuneration, dividend etc., from the said company itself. For the purposes of accounting for, for such sums (as were becoming due to the assessee from time to time), the said company had been maintaining a current account in the name of the assessee. Payments made to the assessee against such sums due to the assessee were being debited by Kothari Products Limited (hereinafter referred to as "KPL") to the current account as aforesaid. Such debits by and larg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2005)98TTJLuck446
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the block assessment order dt. 25th Sept., 1997, passed for the financial years 1986-87 to 1995-96 and for the period 1st April, 1996 to 25th Sept., 1996, passed under Section 143(3)/158BC of the IT Act, 1961.2. One of the grounds taken by the assessee is disputing the validity of the block assessment order passed by the AO under Section 158BC of the Act, on the ground that there was no search warrant in the name of the assessee and as such the framing of the assessment order under Section 158BC of the Act is not in accordance with law as no notice under Section 158BD was given to the assessee.3. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm, which has been running a nursing home. He submitted that search warrants were in the name of Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Shrivastava and Dr. D.C. Shrivastava only and there was no search warrant in the name of the assessee. The learned Authorised Represen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2005)92ITD423Luck
1. Both the appeals have been directed by the assessee against separate orders of the learned CIT(A), dt. 28th Aug., 2003, pertaining to asst.yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02. As the issues in both the appeals are common, these are being disposed of by a consolidated order. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the asst. yr. 2000-01 are as under : "1. Because, the proceedings under Section 147 have neither been validly initiated nor concluded and the view to the contrary, as taken by the learned CIT(A)-I, Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" is wholly erroneous. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) on a due consideration and correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that-- (a) the "material" as was necessary for providing a live link and nexus between the formation of 'reason to believe' and 'escapement of income' was nonexistent; and (b) a valid return was pending at the time of initiation of action under Section 147. Should have held that init...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2005)92TTJLuck199
Both the appeals have been directed by the assessee against separate orders of the learned CIT (A), dated 28-8-2003, pertaining to assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. As the issues in both the appeals are common, these are being disposed of by a consolidated order. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the assessment year 2000-01 are as under: "1. Because, the proceedings under section 147 have neither been validly initiated nor concluded and the view to the contrary, as taken by the learned CIT (A)-I, Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as "CIT (A)" is wholly erroneous.2. Because the learned CIT (A) on a due consideration and correct appreciation of the facts and. circumstances of the case, particularly that (a) the "material" as was necessary for providing a live link and nexus between the formation of 'reason to believe' and 'escapement of income' was non-existent; and (b) a valid return was pending at the time of initiation of action under section 147.Should have held th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2005)92ITD249Luck
1. All the three appeals directed by the Revenue and the cross objections directed by the assessee arise out of a consolidated order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 16.7.02 pertaining to assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. For the sake of convenience, we will first take up the appeals directed by the Revenue.2. In the Revenue's appeal, the deletion of various additions by the ld. CIT(A) has been challenged.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the trading of hardware in his proprietory concern in the name and style of "M/s. Raj Hardware". The assessee filed the return of income in different years. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. asked the assessee as to why the income of Dev Agarwal, HUF, may not be clubbed with the income of the assessee individual. Though the assessee furnished his explanation, the same did not find favour with the A.O. He, therefore, clubbed the income of Dev Raj Agarwal, HUF with...
Tag this Judgment!