Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2003)84ITD563Luck
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 17th Nov., 1994, for the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. Shri Rakesh Garg, advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee, whereas Shri D.K. Shrivastava and Shri B.K. Bharadwaj, Sr. Departmental Representatives, represented the Department.3. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed against the sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 1,31,701 on account of claim of deduction towards payment of interest. The assessee-company had paid interest of Rs. 3,61,034 on the loans and advances taken by it and claimed deduction of this amount. On examination of the records of assessee, the AO found that as per Schedule VIII annexed to the balance sheet, the opening debit balances under the head "Loans and advances" was of Rs. 10,09,583 and the closing debit balance was at Rs. 8,78,012. The assessee had not charged any interest on the debit balance, whereas it was paying interest on the credit balance of the loans and advances taken by it. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2003)79TTJLuck814
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 31st July, 1993, for the asst, yr. 1982-83.2. The assessee has taken five grounds in this appeal. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Prakash Narain, advocate pressed only ground No. 1, which is as under: "That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the interests of Rs. 1,07,72,385 and Rs. 44,27,590 charged under Sections 217 and 220 (sic-215) of the IT Act, 1961, from the appellant did not form part of the income-tax and, therefore, were not deductible in computing the chargeable profits under r. 2(i) of the First Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ." 3. Since the other grounds of appeal were not pressed, we are not required to adjudicate the same and they are rejected as not pressed.4. The AO completed the assessment under Section 6 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, vide his order dt. 15th Sept., 1992. The method of computation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2003)84ITD452Luck
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-7-1993 for the assessment year 1982-83.The assessee has taken five grounds in this appeal. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Prakash Narain, Adv. pressed only ground No. 1, which is as under "That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the interest of Rs. 1,07,72,385 and Rs. 44,27,590 charged under sections 217 and 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from the appellant did not form part of the income-tax and, therefore, was not deductible in computing the chargeable profits under rule 2(1) of the First Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964." Since the other grounds of appeal were not pressed, we are not required to adjudicate the same and they are rejected as not pressed.The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 6 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, vide his order dated 15-9-1992.The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)76TTJLuck628
These are three appeals relating to block assessment order under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of the three assessees belonging to the same group.As identical issues are involved in these appeals, common arguments were advanced on behalf of the assessees as well as on behalf of the department and since the appeals were heard together, they are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.Shri S.K. Garg, advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessees, whereas Shri D.K. Shrivastava, the learned senior Departmental Representative represented the department.During the course of hearing, a petition was filed on behalf of the assessee for admitting the additional evidence. The documents sought to be admitted for consideration of the Bench were also annexed with the application of the assessee dated 12-12-2001. Objections were invited on this application from the department, which was filed on 4-2-2002.After considering the application for admitting fre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. These are three appeals relating to block assessment order under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, in the case of the three assessees belonging to the same group.2. As identical issues are involved in these appeals, common arguments were advanced on behalf of the assessees as well as on behalf of the Department and since the appeals were heard together, they are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.3. Shri S.K. Garg, advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessees, whereas Shri D.K. Shrivastava, the learned senior Departmental Representative represented the Department.4 During the course of hearing, a petition was filed on behalf of the assessee for admitting the additional evidence. The documents sought to be admitted for consideration of the Bench were also annexed with the application of the assessee dt. 12th Dec., 2001. Objections were invited on this application from the Department, which was filed on 4th Feb., 2002. After considering the application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2004)86TTJLuck1012
These are cross-appeals against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 12-7-1996, for the assessment year 1993-94.Shri G.N. Gupta, Adv., appeared on behalf of the assessee, whereas Shri D.K. Shrivastava, learned senior departmental Representative represented the department.The assessee has taken as many as ten grounds in its appeal. ~Iowever, before dealing with these grounds of appeal, we consider it proper to narrate the facts relating to this matter in brief. These are as under : The assessee appellant, a limited company, was - engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. It had two units, namely, Pilibhit unit and Kashipur unit. In respect of these units, the company was maintaining separate accounts, but at the end of the year, the accounts of both the units were merged and a common P&L a/c and balance sheet were drawn.Vide memorandum of understanding dated 5-11-1992, entered into between the assessee and Dhampur Yeast Company Ltd., Kashipur unit Was sold for a ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), dt. 23rd Feb., 2000 relating to block asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1997-98.2. S. K. Garg, the learned counsel for the assessee appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee, whereas D.K. Srivastava, learned Departmental Representative represented the Department.3. The assessee took six grounds at the time of filing of the appeal.Through these grounds, the assessee has challenged various additions sustained by the CIT(A). These grounds are elaborate and are argumentative in form and, therefore, it is not considered proper to reproduce the same in this order. However, we shall take the issues and additions involved in these grounds by referring to the grounds of appeal in relation to such issues/additions.4. The assessee filed a paper book on 11th Feb., 2001, and inside this paper book on pp. 1 and 2 as many as six grounds were taken. Ground No.1 in the so-called grounds of appeal (as concised) was additional grounds and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)74TTJLuck976
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 23-2-2000 relating to block assessment years 1988-89 to 1997-98.S.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the assessee appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee, whereas D.K. Srivastava, learned Departmental Representative represented the department.The assessee took six grounds at the time of filing of the appeal.Through these grounds, the assessee has challenged various additions sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). These grounds are elaborate and are argumentative in form and, therefore, it is not considered proper to reproduce the same in this order. However, we shall take the issues and additions involved in these grounds by referring to the grounds of appeal in relation to such issues/additions.The assessee filed a paper book on 11-2-2001, and inside this paper book on pages 1 and 2 as many as six grounds were taken. Ground No. 1 in the so-called grounds of appeal (as concised) was addi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2004)89TTJLuck646
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CWT(A), Kanpur, dated 27-3-2000, for the assessment year 1987-88.The assessee appellant has taken various grounds to assail the order of learned CWT(A). Since the grounds are in the form of arguments and are elaborate, we are not reproducing the same here and would like to deal with the main, issues, which are involved in these grounds in the body of this order.Shri R.R. Jain, F.C.A., appeared on behalf of the appellant, whereas Shri Prasenjit Singh, learned departmental Representative, represented the department.These grounds are directed against the findings of the learned CWT(A) upholding the action of the assessing officer in applying r. 8(b) read with r. 20(2) of Wealth-tax Rules for determining the value of house property of the assessee known as 'Jaipur House' before us.The assessee, Late Shri Padampat Singhania was the owner of 'Jaipur House' at Jaipur. After his death, his legal heir, Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania, rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)81ITD89Luck
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), Kanpur, dated 27-3-2000, for the assessment year 1987-88.2. The assessee appellant has taken various grounds to assail the order of learned CWT(A). Since the grounds are in the form of arguments and are elaborate, we are not reproducing the same here and would like to deal with the main issues, which are involved in these grounds in the body of this order.3. Shri R.R. Jain, F.C.A., appeared on behalf of the appellant, whereas Shri Prasenjit Singh, learned DR, represented the Department.4. These grounds are directed against the findings of the learned CWT(A) upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in applying Rule 8 (b) read with Rule 20(2) of Wealth-tax Rules for determining the value of house property of the assessee known as 'Jaipur House' before us.5.1 The assessee, Late Shri Padampat Singhania was the owner of 'Jaipur House' at Jaipur. After his death, his Legal Heir, Dr....
Tag this Judgment!