Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Pune.)137
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 18th Nov., 2005 for asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The assessee company was deriving income from providing warehousing facilities to various parties including Hindustan Lever Ltd. The return for asst. yr. 2001-02 was filed on 31st Oct., 2001 showing total income of Rs. 21,98,050. In the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act the AO, assessed the lease rent received from M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. under the head 'Income from house property', and made a disallowance of Rs. 13,51,000 under Section 40A(2)(b). He assessed the total income at Rs. 92,06,815 as under: 3. The order of the AO was challenged before the CIT(A) by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's view that the lease rent received from Hindustan Lever was assessable as 'income from house property', confirmed the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b), and held that the receipts from the warehousing charges were also to be assessed as 'income ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)303ITR278(Pune.)
1. In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was heard by the Division Bench of this Tribunal. As a result of difference of opinion between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member in regard to the following question, the issue was referred to a Third Member by the Hon'ble President, ITAT, Under Section 255(4) of the Act: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case. Commissioner of Income- tax. Nashik is justified in setting aside the assessment for assessment year 1999-2000 with certain directions under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. 1961? 2. With regard to the above question referred to, the Id Accountant Member of the Bench came to the conclusion that the CIT was not justified in setting aside the matter because there was no prejudice caused to the Revenue and the order was not erroneous either. On the other hand, the Id Judicial Member hold that setting aside by the CIT of the order of the AO was justified because the AO failed to conduct an enquiry which in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)104ITD141(Pune.)
1. This appeal, by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 29.01.1999 for AY 1995-96.2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar and industrial and potable alcohol. The return for AY 1995-96 was filed on 30.11.1995 showing total income of Rs. 6,74,05,020 which was processed Under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 25.07.1996. The case was later picked up for detailed scrutiny by issue of notice Under Section 142(1) of the Act on 09.01.1998. In the assessment order passed by the AO Under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.03 1998 the total income was assessed at Rs. 9,75,35,767. In this order, the AO interalia made additions of Rs. 1,47,34,417, Rs. 58,61,651, Rs. 1,57,51,180 (Rs. 2,08,98,653-Rs. 51,47,473) on account of excess collection of levy sugar price and interest there on Under Section 41(1) of the Act.3. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action and his order has challenged by the assessee in the present appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1995-96, dated 29-11-2002.2. Shri S.N. Inamdar, the learned Authorised Representative did not press this ground and therefore it is rejected.3. This ground relates to the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act.4. The first assessment order, giving rise to the present controversy, was passed by the assessing officer for assessment year 1996-97 on 23-2-1999 and it is this order, which was referred to by the CIT in his order under Section 263 for assessment year 1995-96 and then by the assessing officer in his consequential assessment order. Therefore, for deciding this appeal for assessment year 1995-96 we proceed to discuss and examine the orders of the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) for both the years i.e. assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97.5. The facts of the case, in brief, are these : The assessee company incorporated on 21-1-1981...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Pune.)350
1. These two appeals pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 have been filed by the assessee arising out of the orders of CIT(A) respectively dt. 15th Sept., 2000 and 24th Dec, 2001. Some of the issues raised in these appeals are identical, hence, consolidated and hereby decided by this common order.2. The ground No. 1 in respect of both the years is regarding claim of depreciation on residential buildings provided to the staff. For asst.yr. 1997-98 claim of depreciation amounted to Rs. 1,95,926 and for asst. yr. 1998-99 the amount of depreciation was Rs. 1,86,130. In the ground itself, few arguments have also been raised that the cost of construction of residential buildings was incurred by the appellant out of company's own funds as well as out of loans taken from HDFC. In the ground, it has also been mentioned that the Revenue authorities have erred in invoking the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act, 1961 r/w Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.3. Briefly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
1. These appeals of the assessee arise out of the three separate orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Aurangabad, on 26-9-2002. The corresponding orders of assessment were made by the Dy. CIT, Sr.-2, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred as to the assessing officer), under the provisions of Section 143(3) on 30-3-1998, 27-1-1999 and 23-8-1999, respectively. The appeals involve common grounds and, therefore, they were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel of the assessee and the learned departmental Representative. Therefore, a common order is passed.2.1 From the assessment order, it is seen that the assessee company was registered on 15-12-1993. The first annual report was prepared for the period ending on 31-3-1995. The shareholders of the company are Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company, USA, Goodyear India Ltd., Ceat Finance Ltd., Ceat Holdings Ltd., and RPG Enterprises Ltd., holding 26 per cent, 24 per cent, 25 per cent, 20 per cent and 5 per cent of the subscrib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)110ITD549(Pune.)
1. These appeals of two assessees involve common ground's and, therefore, the appeals were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel of the assessee and the learned DR. Therefore, the appeals are disposed off by way of a consolidated order.2. The assessee had taken seven grounds of appeal, out of which ground nos. 6 & 7 are general and residuary in nature, which do not require any decision from us. The other 5 grounds are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the statement of facts separately enclosed, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Nagpur has erred in considering the assessment order passed by the learned ACIT (Central) Aurangabad Under Section 158 BC(c) r.w. Section 143(3) of the income-tax Act, 1961 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and wrongly presumed that an amount of Rs. 1.00 crore has escaped assessment. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2008)110ITD229(Pune.)
1. These appeals of the assessee and revenue have some common grounds and they were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel and the learned DR Therefore, we find it convenient to pass a consolidated order.2. This appeal of the revenue was partly allowed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench, Pune on 11.09.2003 The assessee moved a miscellaneous application on 21.11.2003 This application was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.04.2005 for the reason that the learned Counsel of the assessee pointed out that the assessee had also carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay The Hon'ble Court set aside the order of the Tribunal with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after taking all facts into account A copy of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 18.01.2005 was also filed In that order, it is mentioned that two important judgments i.e. CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. 179 ITR 8 and Anoop Engineering Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 457 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)108ITD603(Pune.)
1. These appeals of the assessee arise out of a common order of the learned CIT(A), Kolhapur, passed on 11.03.2002. These appeals have a common ground. Appeal No. 705/PN/03 also raises ground regarding levy of additional tax. The learned Counsel of the assessee and the learned DR argued the appeals in a consolidated manner. Therefore, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by way of a consolidated order.The common substantive ground taken by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred on facts as well as in law in disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction Under Section 80IA, although it had complied with the conditions laid down in the Act for claiming such deduction.2.1 The facts of the case for AY 1997-98 are that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing pan-masala and gutka. The assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 92,76,592/- on 28.11.1997, The return was revised on 27.11.1999 declaring total income of Rs. 65,10,350/-. The ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Pune.)474
1. These two appeals by the assessee (sic-Revenue), directed against the orders of the CIT(A) dt. 5th Aug., 1996 for asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94, were heard together and therefore these are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The only issue involved in this appeal is about the assessee's claim in respect of interest and commitment charges amounting to Rs. 3,12,01,951.3. The grounds of appeal filed with the Form No. 36 on 23rd Oct., 1996 were subsequently revised vide letter dt. 29th June, 2004. In the revised ground, the figure in respect of the claim of interest was changed from Rs. 2,46,50,000 to Rs. 3,12,01,951. Subsequently, the Department made a request vide letter dt. 25th Jan., 2006 for admitting an additional ground as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A), Nashik has erred in admitting the additional evidences, in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules in para Nos. 6.2 and 6.3 of the appella...
Tag this Judgment!