Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Chennai)1008
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 2004-05 is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XI, Chennai, dt. 16th Oct., 2006. The only issue raised by the assessee is on the deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act.2. While stating the case the assessee's counsel by relying on ground Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that in this case the AO had violated the principles of equity and natural justice by not following the mandatory and the settled provisions of law for the following reasons.3. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of lamination blades from steel rolls. The return of income for the assessment year under consideration was filed on 1st Nov., 2004 on nil taxable income after claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act.However, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) by disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IB.In doing so the AO came to the conclusion that the activity engaged by the assessee did not t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)103ITD63(Chennai)
1. By his order dated 19.4.06, the Hon'ble President, ITAT, was pleased to constitute a Special Bench in this case to consider the following issue: Whether membership card of Madras Stock Exchange could be construed to be a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; exconsequenti, consideration of the alleged transfer of membership card is exigible to capital gains tax? 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee individual had sold the membership card of Madras Stock Exchange ('MSE' for short) to M/s. ASERA Securities (P). Ltd. ('ASERA1 for short) for a total consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for which shares were allotted. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the membership card of MSE constituted a capital asset and hence the gains arising on the transfer of such card constituted capital gains. However, the assessee was of the view that it was not an asset but merely a personal right, a personal permission, which was not capable o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2007)104ITD149(Chennai)
1. These appeals by the assessee and revenue are directed against the respective orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Since the appeals were heard together and issues are related, the same are being consolidated and disposed off together for the sake of convenience.The first issue raised is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of excise duty and sales tax to the turn over for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC.3. It transpires that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT v. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. . In this case, it was held that excise duty and sales tax have to be excluded from turn over for the purposes of Section 80HHC. Respectfully following the precedent, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.4. The next issue raised is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
1. These two appeals, one by the revenue and one by the assessee are directed against two different orders of the Commissioner (Appeals).The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 783/Mad/2001 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XII, Chennai dated 19-2-2001 confirming the order of the assessing officer regarding refusal to recognize the partition of HUF under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 907/Mad/2001 is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XII, dated 19-2-2001 in respect of the assessment framed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act.2. First we will take up the assessees appeal in ITA No. 783/Mad/2001.The only issue in this appeal relates to confirming the order of the assessing officer by the Commissioner (Appeals) in regard to refusal to grant recognition to the family partition of HUF under Section 171 of the Act which took place on 16-9-1994.3. The briefly stated facts of the case are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)103ITD198(Chennai)
1. The assessee, a Registered Firm, has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Madurai dated 19^th of February, 2004. This Special Bench has been constituted for considering the following question: In view of the provisions of Section 32(2)(iii) whether it is possible to set off the brought forward depreciation loss against capital gains? 2. On behalf of the assessee firm, Mr. C.V. Rajan, Senior Advocate along with Shri S.P. Chidambaram appeared and for the Department, Mr.C. Venkateswarlu appeared. The counsel for the assessee and the Departmental Representative placed before us in clear terms the contentions that they both felt are relevant to the issue before us. We appreciate the arguments and contentions placed by both of them as they were eloquent and relevant to the issue before us. Considering the rival submissions, we would be rendering our conclusions along with the reasons therefor in the following paragraphs.3. The issue that is r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2007)105ITD629(Chennai)
1. The appeal has been filed by the assessee in the name of Chennai Bottling Co. Ltd. A petition for recording change of name has been filed in which it is mentioned that name of the company was changed to "Alankar Business Corporation Ltd." which was approved by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore on 11.4.2003. A copy I of certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies has also been filed and therefore, change of name is permitted.2. The assessee had raised various grounds which were of argumentative nature and therefore, the Bench had directed the Id. counsel for the assessee on 1^st March, 2006 (i.e. previous hearing) to file concise grounds of appeal which have been duly filed and are as under: (1) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining wrong computation of short term capital gain of Rs. 1,88,47,376 by the Assessing Officer by adding notional breakage and deducted from WDV on an estimated basis without considering the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. (2) The CIT(A) ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)102ITD135(Chennai)
1. All the five appeals of the Revenue relate to asst. yrs. 1991-92 to 1995-96. We heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.2. Let us first take ITA No. 119/Mad/1999 which relates to asst. yr.1991-92. The only issue arises for consideration is regarding the valuation of the share of Tata Tea Ltd. for the purpose of capital gains.3. We heard both the representatives of the Revenue and the assessee.Tata Tea Ltd. offered to buy majority of the shares in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. Tata Tea Ltd. offered one share of Tata Tea Ltd. and Rs. 100 for every two shares of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. For the purpose of capital gain, the AO took the market rate of the Tata Tea Ltd. on the date of exchange at Rs. 320. However, on appeal by the assessee, the first appellate authority found that the market value of Tata Tea Ltd. would become relevant only when the assessee sells the share of Tata Tea Ltd. In this case, since there was an exchange of Tata Tea Ltd. for Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2007)105ITD623(Chennai)
1. These appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the CIT(A)-IX, Chennai. The relevant assessment years involved in these appeals are 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1999-2000.2. The only common issue in all these appeals of the Revenue is, as to whether reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, is in violation of Section 14A of the Act or not in the given facts and circumstances of the case.3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the case records. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 53,15,566. While completing the original assessments under Section 143(3) of the Act for all the assessment years under consideration, the AO allowed the entire deduction. Subsequently, the AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and in reassessment, he restricted the deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) to the net receipts of Rs. 38,20,117 by reducing the expe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2007)106ITD427(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 17.08.05 and pertains to assessment year 2001-02.2. The issue raised in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions to the extent of Rs. 15,80,289/- by rejecting the sale price of flats claimed to have been received by assessee (and as evidenced by the registered sale deeds) and substituting the same by an estimated sale price. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of purchasing land and building and developing rights therein, to develop the property either as owner or as joint venture with the land/property owner and sell the same. At times, the assessee only developed the property for the property owner. During the year under consideration, development work was going on in respect of three properties. However, there was sale of residential flats in two of the buildings only during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. One of the two buildings was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2007)106ITD342(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the Revenue and C.O. by the assessee emanate out of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 18.11.03 and pertain to assessment year 1996-97.2. The issue raised in Revenue's appeal is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in cancelling the assessment as barred by limitation even though confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on merits.3. In the CO., the assessee has remonstrated that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on merits.4. To briefly stratify the case, during the course of proceedings Under Section 230A, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee purchased a property at New No. 106, Old No. 39, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai-20 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,300/- vide sale deed 31.10.95. The property was purchased by the assessee from his father Shri O.M. Umar Mohideen. In addition to the sale price as mentioned in the sale...
Tag this Judgment!