Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)104ITD516(Pune.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against an order of CIT(A) dated 30^th October 98. Initially, the grounds raised were narrative as well as argumentative, hence it was directed to concise this ground, hence this appeal is hereby decided-as per the concised ground reproduced below: 1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Assessing Officer has erred is disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,71,500/-. Same being for the purpose of business/profession. Same may please be allowed in computation of Income.This is the case of a doctor earning income from medical profession.During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,71,500/- as business expenditure under the head "Educational and Training Expenses". It was explained to A.O that the assessee's son had taken admission in a Medical College and the said amount was in respect of fees paid for his education. The explanation submitted before the A.O was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)104ITD199(Pune.)
1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of CIT(A) - I, Pune, passed on 17.11.1999. The corresponding order of assessment was made by the DCIT, SR-3, Pune (hereinafter called the AO), under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, on 17.02.1998.2.1 Ground No. 1 is against the finding of the learned CIT(A) in which disallowance of Rs. 1,33,400/-, made by the AO, representing the provision for warranty obligation, was upheld. It was mentioned in the ground that the liability had crystallized in the year and the provision was made with reference to the available data. On perusal of the order it is found that the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the liability was a contingent liability and it did not accrue in the relevant previous year. Before us. the learned Counsel of the assessee pointed out that the liability for warranty arose on account of sale of goods. Under the contract the assessee was under obligation to set right the defects within the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)105ITD146(Pune.)
1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Pune. passed on 30.12.2004. The corresponding order of assessment was passed by the ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar (hereinafter called the AO), under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, on 28.01.2004. The assessee has taken up five grounds of appeal. Ground No. 5 is against the charging of interest under Sections 234B & 234C in respect of the tax payable by the assessee Under Section 115JB of the Act. This ground was withdrawn in the course of hearing by the learned Counsel of the assessee.2.1 Before dealing with the other grounds of appeal, we may record in brief the contents of the orders of the AO and the learned CIT(A). The assessee had filed its return of income on 25.10.2001, declaring total income of Rs. 2,07,675/-. The AO computed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,07.675/-. He also computed the book profits, Under Section 115JB of the Act at Rs. 23,17,154/-. While doing so, he inter-alia reduc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)104ITD204(Pune.)
1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the CIT(A) - I, Pune, passed on 30.04.2001. The corresponding order of assessment was passed by the JCIT, SR-3, Pune (hereinafter called the AO), under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, on 30.11.1999.The assessee had taken up nine grounds at the time of filing of the appeal. These grounds were narrative and argumentative in nature. Thus, these grounds were not in conformity with the ITAT rules. Accordingly, the learned Counsel of the assessee was requested to file revised grounds of appeal. Such revised grounds dated 24.01.2006 were filed.Five grounds have been raised, out of which ground No. 5 is residuary in nature, which does not require any decision from us. The remaining 4 grounds are reproduced below for the sake of convenience. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding capital gain of Rs. 48,59,900/- as short-term capital gain as against Rs. 44,44,725/-assessed by the learned AO as long term capital ga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Pune.)487
1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee for the asst. yrs.1995-96 and 1997-98.2. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and as such, was not pressed for.The same thus stands rejected.3. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 are in connection with the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. In the course of hearing of this appeal, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee that ground Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are all argumentative in nature in support of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, which has been raised in ground No. 2. It was pointed out that substantial ground to be argued is only ground No.2 related to the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of the assessee's activity of manufacturing of sand and for preparation of identity cards. Therefore, the issues that fall for our consideration are (i) as to whether the activity of manufacturing of sand constitutes industrial undertaking within the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2006)101ITD11(Pune.)
1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Pune, passed on 27.09.1999. The corresponding order of assessment was made by the DCIT, SR-2, Pune (hereinafter called the AO), under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, on 26.02.1998. The assessee has taken up (seven grounds of appeal. Ground Nos. 6 & 7 are in the nature of prayer and residuary ground, which do not require any decision from us. The main ground of appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the fair market value of the property, transferred by the assessee in this previous year for working out the long-term capital gains was. Rs. 27/- per sq. ft. as worked out by the registered valuer, It is inter-alia mentioned that the said land was converted into stock-in-trade and on the date of such conversion, the restrictions of Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA) were not applicable.Therefore, the value on 01.04.1981 had to be made on the basis that the restrictions of ULCA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)105ITD485(Pune.)
1. These two cross appeals arise out of the order of CIT(A) - I, Pune, passed on 29.08.1994. The order of assessment was passed by the DCIT, SR-2, Pune, under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, on 25.03.1994. The assessee has taken up six grounds of appeal, out of which ground No. 6 is residuary in nature, which does not require any decision from us. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are against non-deduction of a sum of Rs. 23,30,508/-, being the Statutory Reserve Fund (hereinafter called the SRF), in computing the income of the assessee. It is inter-alia mentioned that the debit to the profit & loss account in respect of the SRF amounted to diversion of income by overriding title and, therefore, because of the aforesaid reason and otherwise also, the amount represented an allowable deduction in computing the income. The 4^th ground of appeal is against the non-deduction of a sum of Rs. 3,76,430/-, representing the reserve for doubtful debts, in computing the income. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Pune.)882
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-III Pune, dt. 29th Nov., 2001 for asst. yr. 1998-99. 1. The learned CIT(A)-in Pune erred in confirming that export incentives and miscellaneous income of Rs. 80,66,246 and Rs. 63,231 respectively are not 'derived from' the eligible industrial undertaking and hence are not to be, considered as eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A)-in, Pune erred in reducing 90 per cent of the liabilities written back and miscellaneous receipts amounting to Rs. 4,84,293 and Rs. 63,231 while computing profits of the business eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A)-III, Pune erred in confirming disallowance out of staff welfare expenses, telephone expenses and miscellaneous expenses to the extent of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 25,000 respectively on account of non-business use for want of verification. 4. The appellant-company craves le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2006)101ITD297(Pune.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of CIT(A) dated 10-1-2002. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's contention that the Loss suffered under the head 'Business' should be set off against the 'Income from other sources', in the first instance, and only the surviving loss should be set off against 'Income from capital gains'.A short and interesting issue has been raised in this appeal that whether a business loss of the year has to be first set off against the income under the head "Other sources" or against the income under the head "Capital gains". The claim of the appellant is that the business loss should be first set off against interest income, i.e., income from other sources and thereafter if any balance is left, the same is to be set off against the capital gains of the year. Factual position as stated before us in the light of statement of income was that the assessce has suffered a loss of Rs. 9,47,189 under the head 'Business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Pune.)292
1. The Revenue as well as the assessee are in appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, dt. 28th Oct. 1999 passed in the matter of an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The only ground raised by the assessee in the appeal filed by it is directed against the CIT(A)'s order in upholding the treatment of loss from share trading activity of Rs. 2,47,97,775 as speculative loss within the meaning of Explanation to Section 73 of the Act.3. On perusal of P&L a/c, it was noticed that the assessee had incurred loss from share trading at Rs. 2,47,97,775. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO drew the assessee's attention to the provisions of Section 73 r/w Explanation thereto and required the assessee to explain as to why the loss from share trading should not be treated as speculative business loss as per the provisions contained in the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. In reply thereto, the assessee submitted an explanation dt. 23rd Jan., 1998 be...
Tag this Judgment!