Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2008)112ITD68Panji
1. This appeal has been filed by thje assessee against the order dated 30^th November, 2004 of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee had taken as many as 15 grounds of appeal at the time of filing the appeal. Revised grounds were latter filed as per Rule 8. As per the revised grounds of appeal six grounds have been taken.2. The facts of the; case have been duly discussed by the lower authorities and, in brief, they are as under: The assessee filed the return of income on 20 September. 1997 declaring the loss of Rs. 1,81,783/-. This return was late by 13 months of the due date. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Incoraetax Act, 1961. However, subsequently, a notice under Section 148 of he Act was issued on 13^th November, 2000 and the assessment was made under Section 143(3) lead with Section 147 of the Act as per order dated 28^th March, 2002 determining the capital gains at Rs. 72,28,175/- in respect of transfer of the theatre building by demolishing the same an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2007)109ITD303Panji
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT dated 26-7-2006 where, she has rejected the assessee's application for registration Under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant is a statutory autonomous body of the Government of India.For this purpose, the COD's permission dated 31-10-2006 is available (page A-3 of the supplementary paper book). Hence the appeal is before us 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised seven grounds which deal with the single issue of rejection of its request for registration Under Section 12A as a 'Charitable Institution' retrospectively from the assessment year 1966-68. Grounds no. 1 to 6 are concerning the action of the CIT, Panaji in rejecting the assessee's claim to be registered Under Section 12A as a Charitable Institution for the reasons enumerated in her order dated 26-7-2006, while ground no. 7 challenges me action of the CIT m not condoning the delay in making the application Under Section 12A for regis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2006)102ITD289Panji
1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), on the following grounds: 1. It may be declared that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [learned CIT(A)] has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO that income-tax on interest is covered by the word 'income-tax' appearing in Clause (a) of Explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 115JA of the IT Act, 1961. 2. It may be declared that income-tax is defined in Section 2(43) of the IT Act, 1961 and the said income-tax does not include any interest payable on such income-tax. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that book profit under Section 115JA does not include interest on income-tax. 4. It may be declared that the book profits under Section 115JA cannot be enhanced by including the amount of interest on income-tax by resorting to Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee was engaged, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, in the busi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2005)93ITD41Panji
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and is directed against the order dt. 18th Feb., 2003, passed by the CIT(A), Belgaum, in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the asst. yr. 2001-2002. (i) The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. (ii) The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for relief under Section 89(1) on the amount received under the. Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) as reduced by the exempted income under Section 10(10C) of the Act. (iii) The learned CIT(A) erred in giving a finding that the amount received by assessee under VRS remaining after the exempted income under Section 10(10C) is compensation covered within the meaning of Section 17(3)(i) of the Act and Rule 21A(1)(c) of the Rules. (iv) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the VRS amount received by assessee, reduced by the exempted income under Section 10(10C) constituted compensation re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
1. As common issues are involved in these four appeals, the same were argued together by the learned authorised representative of the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and are being decided by this consolidated order for convenience.2. Appeal in I.T.A. No. 85/PNJ/98 is an appeal filed by the assessee in relation to order under section 143(1)(a) whereas appeal in I.T.A. No.213/PNJ/98 is an appeal filed by revenue in relation to order u/s 154.These appeals are concerned with levy of interest u/s 234C on the amount of tax-determined u/s 143(1)(a). Appeals in I.T.A. No. 10/PNJ/99 and I.T.A. No. 86/PNJ/99 are appeals filed by revenue and assesses respectively in relation to the amount of capital gains chargeable to tax.3. We shall first take up the quantum appeals, being ITA Nos 10/PNJ/99 and 86/PNJ/99. The controversy in these appeals relates to as to whether the amount of capital gains is chargeable to tax as short-term capital gain or long-term capital gain or both. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2004)86TT(JP.)anji901
All these appeals, being of the same"assessee, are disposed of, for the sake of convenience, by this consolidated order.The objections raised by the assessee in these appeals relate to the following issues (i) Common objection for all the three assessment years is against the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") while calculating the tax payable by the assessee in the body of the assessment order but without there being any direction or order in any of the assessment order with regard to charging of such interest.(ii) The second objection for assessment year 1994-95 is against the addition of Rs. 50,000 made by considering the investment in purchase of jeep as unexplained, by invoking the provision of section 69 of the Act.(iii) The common second objection, for assessment year 1995-96 and assessment year 1996-97, is against the addition of Rs. 1,110,000 in each year made by invoking the provisions of sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2003)78TT(JP.)anji416
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to asst. yr. 1991-92 and is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Belgaum, dt. 19th May, 1995.2. The assessee filed return of income on 30th Dec., 1991, declaring 'nil' income. While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, some adjustments of Rs. 4,12,720 were made to the total income returned as the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. On receipt of intimation, the assessee filed petition under Section 154 requesting to rectify the mistake. An amount of Rs. 4,12,720 was stated to have been incurred by the assessee to develop a new project suitable for defence distribution mechanism for T-72 tanks but the assessee had not debited the above amount yet while computing total income, assessee's claim is that the expenditure in question is wholly and exclusively for the business purpose and as such the same is allowable as a revenue expenditure. But the AO concluded that in the absence of any evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2003)87ITD1Panji
1. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are consolidated and disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience. The assessees at Sr. Nos. 3 and 4 are the spouses of Mr.Dominic Dias and Mr. Richard Dias respectively and all the assessees are governed by the Portuguese Civil Code.2. The first common grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were properly initiated with sufficient ground for issue of notice under Section 148. All the four assessees are co-owners of agricultural land measuring 1,08,000 sq. mtrs. situated at Canacona.The said land was sold to M/s Deeksha Holding Co. (P) Ltd. who purchased the same on 27th Oct., 1994, for a consideration of Rs. 1,69,56,000 for construction of a beach resort. The share of each assessee being Rs. 42,39,000.3. The assessees had filed returns of income for asst, yr. 1995-96 on 31st Oct., 1995, which were processed under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2003)84ITD634Panji
1. This is an assessee's appeal for the asst. yr. 1989-90 against the order of GIT(A), Belgaum, dt. 15th March, 1991, on six grounds pertaining to the only one issue of taxing the income derived from the sale of water from the pond located in the agricultural land of the assessee.2. I have heard at length the learned representative for the assessee Shri G.N. Gadgil as well as the learned Departmental Representative, Shri R.K. Gupta. Their arguments are taken into consideration. I have also perused the relevant averments from the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also gone through the case law cited by Shri G.N. Gadgil on behalf of the assessee.3. The real facts of the dispute under consideration are very simple.The assessee owned agricultural land at Sancoale, Goa. She sold an elevated agricultural land to M/s Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. It appears that the assessee is still the owner of low level agricultural land. By virtue of owning a low level agricultural land a po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2002)77TT(JP.)anji213
This is an assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1989-90 against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Belgaum, dated 15-3-1991, on six grounds pertaining to the only one issue of taxing the income derived from the sale of water from the pond located in the agricultural land of the assessee.I have heard at length the learned representative for the assessee Shri G.N Gadgil as well as the learned Departmental Representative, Shri R.K. Gupta.Their arguments are taken into consideration. I have also perused the relevant averments from the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee.I have also gone through the case law cited by Shri G.N. Gadgil on behalf of the assessee.The real facts of the dispute under consideration are very simple. The assessee owned agricultural land at Sancoale, Goa. She sold an elevated agricultural land to M/s Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. It appears that the assessee is still the owner of low level agricultural land. By virtue of owning a low level agricultural lan...
Tag this Judgment!