Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Pune.)880
1. The present proceedings in this case are a sequel to the directions given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petn. No. 7459 of 2006, dt. 12th Feb., 2007.2. The cross-appeals, against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 14th Aug., 2003 for asst. yr. 1997-98, filed by the assessee and by the Department in ITA Nos. 1257/Pn/2003 and 1269/Pn/2003 respectively, were decided by Tribunal Pune, vide its order dt. 5th Oct., 2005. The miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee in Misc. Appln. No. 19/Pn/2006 and by the Department in Misc. Appln. No. 29/Pn/2007, in relation to the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dt. 5th Oct., 2005 were disposed of by the Tribunal vide its orders dt. 7th July, 2006 and 5th July, 2007 respectively.3. The assessee then filed a Writ Petn. No. 7459 of 2006, before the Bombay High Court, challenging the orders of the Tribunal dt. 5th Oct., 2005 (supra) and dt. 7th July, 2006 (supra). While allowing the writ petition, in its order dt. 12th Feb., 2007, Coca Cola India (P) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
1. This appeal by the Taxpayer E-Gain Communication Pvt. Ltd., a nonresident company, is directed against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (A) (CIT(A) in short), confirming addition of Rs. 1,08,62,537 on account of adjustment in the Arm's length price tinder the provisions of Section 92CA(3) of the Act for services rendered by the taxpayer to its parent company in USA.2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of software product development and is 100% E.O.U. unit approved by Software Technology Park of India under STPI Scheme. It is also taken as leading provider of customer service and contact center software based on integrated communication platform. The taxpayer has further claimed exemption Under Section 10A of the I.T. Act. As per the audited accounts filed by the taxpayer, it has shown the total export turnover of Rs. 10,25,68,917 from which it derived profit of Rs. 46,95,254.3. The Assessing Officer, after noticing the details of transactions of the tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Pune.)658
1. These appeals were placed before the regular Bench for hearing.While hearing the matter, the Bench found that there were divergent views on the issue. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Koyana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd., Karad, in ITA No. 626 & 627/PN/1984. vide its order dated 30.09.1986, held that the process of pasteurization of milk does not amount to process of manufacture / production for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Similar view was taken by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kanyakumari District Co-op. Milk Supply Producers Union Ltd reported in 56 ITD 80 (Mad). The Bench further noted that a contrary view had been taken by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Adarsh Dugdhalaya Pvt. Ltd. reported in 80 CTR 48 (Mum), wherein the Tribunal held that the process of pasteurization of milk amounts to process of manufacture / production for claiming deduction under Section 32A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Pune.)96
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt. 11th May, 2006 in the matter of rectification of mistakes under Section 154 r/w Section 250 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst.yr. 2002-03. The assessee is, in substance, aggrieved that the CIT(A), on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, ought to have held that the rectification petition filed by the assessee was maintainable and he should have directed the AO to grant deduction of Rs. 39,83,677 in respect of bad debts which were written off in the relevant previous year.2. The issue in appeal lies in a narrow compass of undisputed material facts. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 39,83,677 on account of bad debts, in the asst. yr. 2001-02. However, the claim was rejected by the AO on the ground that the bad debt was not actually written off.Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The CIT(A) held...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Pune.)337
1. The short issue that we are required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not the CIT-III, Pune was justified in declining to renew approval under Section 80G of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for asst. yr. 2006-07 onwards.2. The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Trusts Act, 1950. The assessee is one of oldest educational institution in the city was established in the year 1888 which was set up 120 years ago, the main objective of the society was stated to impart education in vernacular language and to educate students about their duties to the society, self respect, self reliance and duties towards our nation. As on now, it has established and it runs several educational institutions at different places. When the assessee sought renewal of approval under Section 80G, vide application in Form 10G received by the CITs office on 9th Feb., 2007, the assessee was issued a questionnaire calling upon the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Pune.)346
1. These four appeals, filed by the appellant tax deductor, are directed against the consolidated order dt. 12th July, 2006 passed by the CIT(A) in upholding tax withholding demands, in respect of 'distributors incentive', 'early payment discount' and 'bond expenses' paid by the assessee to its distributors, raised under Section 201(1) r/w Section 194H of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06.2. Grievance of the assessee, in short, is that the CIT(A) ought to have held that there was no tax withholding requirements from the 'distributors incentive', 'early payment discount' and 'bond expenses' paid by the assessee to its distributors.3. A few material facts need to be taken note of. The appellant is an Indian company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beer.The appellant has, for the purposes of sale and distribution of its products, appointed certain distributors. In the course of a survey carried out in the assessee's premises, and upon examining the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)113ITD55(Pune.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dt. 31st Jan., 2003 for asst. yr. 1998-99.2. The assessee company was floated in India by Styler Daimler Puch, Austria. It was incorporated on 15th Sept., 1997. The business of the assessee company was to provide engineering assistance and technology to vehicle and component manufacturers. The return for asst. yr.1998-99 was filed on 28th Nov., 1998, declaring loss of Rs. 45,35,556.In the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) on 18th Dec, 2000, the total income was assessed at Rs. 3,91,780 as under:Loss as per statement of total income (-) 45,35,556Add:Income from other sources 3,91,780 ___________Less: Disallowance (-) 45,35,556 ___________Total income 3,91,780 ___________ 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the finding of the learned AO that the assessee had not set up its business during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal and thereby in confirming disallowance of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Pune.)841
1. This appeal filed by the Department is directed against the order of CIT(A) dt. 12th Nov., 2001 for asst. yr. 1998-99.2. The main issue involved in this appeal is about the applicability of the decision of the Tribunal (Special Bench) in the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. v. Jt. CIT , to the case of a builder assessee, who was consistently following a 'modified project completion method' of accounting, and which was accepted by the AO during earlier years.3. The assessee company was deriving income from its business as a builder and civil contractor. The return for asst. yr. 1998-99 was filed on 24th Nov., 1998 showing total income of Rs. 25,21,880. In the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) on 30th March, 2001, the AO assessed the total income at Rs. 43,63,796 after making additions, inter alia, as under: 4. The CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid additions and his order has been challenged by the Department in the present appeal. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
1. These four appeals pertain to the same assessee were heard together and Involve a common legal issue on materially identical set of facts.As a matter of convenience, therefore, all the four appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order: 2. The grievance raised by the assessee in all these four appeals is as follows: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that the appellant trust had violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) because it had made deposits with Dr. Dada Gujar Co-operative Patsanstha Ltd. and as a consequence, it was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the deposits with Dr. Dada Gujar Co-operative Patsanstha Ltd were not covered under Section 11(5)(iii) and hence, the assessee trust had violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(d). (a) The investment of funds in Patsanstha was not in violation of the provisions of Section 11(5) and Section 13(1)(d) (b) The Patsanstha was a co-operative ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Pune.)522
1. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the order of CIT (Central), Pune dt. 26th March, 2007 passed under Section 263 of IT Act and the grounds are as under: 1. The learned CIT (Central), Pune erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT (Central), Pune further erred in setting aside the order passed under Section 158BC by the Addl. CIT, Central Range 1, Pune on 31st Dec, 2004 and issuing directions which were not warranted on facts and in law.2. Facts in brief as emerged from the impugned order passed under Section 263 are that the appellant firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in gold jewellery, silver articles, etc. A search was conducted on 24th Oct., 2002. Since there were incriminating documents, therefore, a special audit under Section 142(2A) was recommended. Block assessment was completed for the period 1st April, 1996 to 24th Oct., 2002 under Section 158BC(c). dt. 31st Dec, 2004. ...
Tag this Judgment!