Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)100ITD485(Chennai)
1. Both the appeals of the assessee relate to Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. Since common issues arise for consideration in both the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.2. The first issue arises for consideration is regarding set off of unabsorbed depreciation, unabsorbed loss and unabsorbed investment allowance relating to Assessment Year 1987-88. The learned representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed the return for the Assessment Year 1987-88 on 13.7.87. However, the Assessing Officer treated the return as non est. The Assessing Officer has also rejected the claim of the assessee for set off of carry forward business loss, depreciation and investment allowance. According to the learned representative, even though the return was treated as non est, the assessee is entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation. The learned representative for the assessee placed her reliance on the decision of the Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)101ITD209(Chennai)
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-IV, Chennai dated 2.2.1999. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 1997-98.2. The issue in this appeal is against the disallowance of whole of the rights issue expenses of Rs. 19,94,594 under prima facie adjustment in the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and levy of additional tax under Section 143(1A) of the Act. The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return admitting an income of Rs. 6,23,07,990. The return of income was arrived at by the assessee after claiming in its memo of income amounting to Rs. 19,94,954 as an expenditure allowance under Section 37 of the Act and the said amount was incurred towards rights issue during the year under consideration.The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and the intimation was forwarded to the assessee wherein prima facie adjustment was made by disallowing the claim of the assessee on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)100ITD87(Chennai)
1. I.T.A. Nos. 1757 & 1758 (Mds.)/2004 are filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act. The other appeals are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) CIT(A) for the assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1997-98. We heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.2. Let us first take I.T.A. Nos. 1757 & 1758 (Mds.)/2004 relating to registration. Mr. N. Quadir Hoseyn, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed an application for grant of registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act on 4-11-1993. A similar application was also filed for grant of recognition under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act. The learned Counsel submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax by an order dated 4-9-2002 rejected the application of the assessee. The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee filed an application on 20-9-2002 b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)99ITD534(Chennai)
1. These three appeals by the assessee are arising out of three different orders of the CIT(A), Madurai, and pertain to asst. yrs.1986-87 and 1987-88.2. ITA No. 452/Mad/1993 is against the assessment framed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 144 of the IT Act, 1961. ITA No. 303/Mad/2000 is against the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income and ITA No. 246/Mad/1993 is against assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.3. First we will deal with ITA No. 452/Mad/1993. The only issue in the assessee's appeal is against dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) as "not maintainable", as admitted tax was not paid as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. Before the CIT(A), the AO reported that the assessee has not paid the admitted tax on income before the date of filing of the appeal. The assessee, in appeal memo, the details of payment of tax are shown as follows: The CIT(A) has seen from the record that the assessee has filed a return of incom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)100ITD53(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the revenue emanates out of the order of CIT(A) dated 12-3-2002 and the germane assessment year is 1994-95. The assessee is not a dealer in horses but has only invested in the animals for racing purposes. Selling of horses when it becomes old and not fit for racing is only releasing of investment when its value decreases and cannot be treated as sale of stock-in-trade. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in allowing the decrease in value of assets (depreciation) as decrease in value of closing stock. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 3.62 lakhs claimed under the head "Decrease in value of horses" by holding as under:- The assessee had filed a statement of market value of horses as on 31-3-1994. As per this statement, the value of the horses as on 1-4-1993 was Rs. 8,62,357, the additions being Rs. 5,85,250 the total value was Rs. 14,47,607. On this total value, the assessee had computed decrease in value of horses of Rs. 3,62,607 and arrived at value as on 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)99ITD325(Chennai)
1. These appeals by the assessee as well as the revenue are directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 28-9-1998. In the assessee's appeal, the assessee is aggrieved against confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 33 lakhs received by the assessee towards compensation for expected orders under negotiation, i.e., for not competing or indulging in the transformer business. (i) The CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1.25 crores being technical know-how fee for the reason that there is no provision in the Act to tax it. (ii) The CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 36,16,139 being receipt as compensation on pending orders for not competing.3. First we proceed to dispose of the revenue's appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s.Indo Tech Transformers Ltd., on 15-7-1994 for transfer of the firm as a going concern for a consideration of Rs, 4,70,65,056. The component and payment of this amount works ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)99ITD278(Chennai)
1. These appeals of the assessee are directed against respective orders of the CIT(A). The relevant block assessment period involved in these appeals are 1st April, 1988 to 1st July, 1998. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.2. The first issue raised in the appeal of the assessee, viz., A.P.Shanmugaraj i.e., IT(SS)A No. 16/Mad/2001 is that the assessment is barred by limitation in view of the time-limit expired as per the provisions of Section 142(2A) of the Act and proviso to Section 142(2C) of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was searched by the IT Department, Investigation Wing, on 1st July, 1998 and the last authorization was served on the assessee on 2nd July, 1998 when the search concluded. Notice under Section 158BG of the Act was served on the assessee on 5th June, 1999 and the return in response to the same was filed in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)99ITD745(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17-2-2003 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Chennai and relates to the assessment year 1990-91.2. In this appeal the assessee assailed the reopening of the assessment originally made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the ground of limitation.3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials placed before us and the precedents relied upon. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 27-3-1992 on 'nil' income. In the computation of total income first the deduction under Section 80HHC was allowed to the extent of Rs. 12,45,994. The balance of Rs. 2,32,758 was set off against the business losses. Total income was computed as 'nil'. The assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer on 19-8-1998, on the basis of Apex Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd. . In this case, it; was held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)99ITD317(Chennai)
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Salem, dt. 11th Nov., 2003 and the relevant assessment year is 1993-94. The two inter-connected issues raised by the Revenue in this appeal are that the CIT(A) has erred in entertaining the appeal as the order of waiver of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961, by the Chief CIT is not appealable under Section 246A of the Act and whether the assessee is entitled for interest under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act on refund of waived interest under Section 119(1)(b) of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the appraisal of the case are that the AO passed an order refunding the amount already collected on account of interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The refund order reads as under : Ref. : Order of Chief CIT in C. No. CCA-105(96)/CBE/1996-97, dt. 24th Aug., 2000. Giving effect to the order of Chief CIT, Chennai, in CCA 105(96)/CBE/1996-97, dt. 24th A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)99ITD359(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the deletion of penalty amounting to Rs. 20,57,477 levied under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and relates to the assessment year 1996-97.2. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. Assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. A sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was added, inter alia, towards bogus loans. Assessee alleged to have taken loans from S.Thangavelu, V. Somasundaram, Natarajan, R. Rangaswamy and R.V.Ravichandran, Rs. 5 lakhs from each of them, total amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs. It is not clear from the records whether the assessee did file confirmation or just the addresses. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the assessee did file confirmation but in the order of assessment there is no discussion in regard to the confirmation. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel for the assessee could not clarify this doubt....
Tag this Judgment!