Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
1. This appeal by the assessee company is directed against the order dt. 10.8.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Visakhapatnam, and it pertains to the assessment year 1998-99.2. Though the assessee has raised number of grounds and sub-grounds, they in effect give rise to only two issues; i.e., (a) Whether the Assessing Officer is justified in re-opening the assessment under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of assessment year; (b) Whether the amount representing waiver of part of loan taken from the SCICI (successor of SDFC), would give rise to income taxable under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are stated in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of Deep Sea Fishing and export of the same. In respect of the previous year relevant to assessment year 1998-99, it declared total income of Rs. 1,49,67,491/- on 30.11.1998 before setting off of various losses and depreciation.The assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
1. These three appeals, preferred by the assessee, are directed against the order of Ld CIT(A) Rajahmundry and they pertain to Asst.Years 1989-90 to 1991-92.2. As the issues contested before us are common in all these 3 appeals, they are disposed off by this common order. i) Whether Ld CIT(A) is right in holding that the order of Assessing Officer passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the IT Act is not barred by limitation prescribed Under Section 153(2A).4. The facts of the case are that the assessee-company was incorporated in the month of October 1988 and undertook a project for constructing and running a multi specialty hospital. Consequent to the search and seizure operations Under Section 132 of the Act carried out at the residential premises of its Managing Director, the assessing officer issued notices Under Section 148 of the Income tax Act for the Asst.Years 89-90, 90-91 and 91-92. In response thereto the assessee company filed NIL returns. However the assessing officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
1. These appeals filed by the Revenue involve common issues and therefore we proceed to dispose of these appeals by a combined order for the sake of convenience.2. The issue centers round the interpretation of Section 43A(1) of the Income Tax Act with reference to the entitlement of depreciation under Section 32 of the of the Act.3. The facts of the case revolve in a narrow compass. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Oxo Alcohol. It imported plant and machinery with an understanding that the purchase consideration is payable in foreign currency. During the years under consideration there was increase in the value of the assets on account of exchange rate fluctuation and accordingly the assessee claimed higher depreciation taking into consideration the enhanced liability on account of exchange rate fluctuation. The Assessing Officer was of the view that 'actual cost' for the purpose of claiming depreciation, has to be worked out with reference to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
1. Penalty of Rs. 3,80,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act having been cancelled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, whereas the assessee company filed cross-objections supporting the order of the first appellate authority.2. The Members of the Division Bench, who originally heard the matter, differed in their views; the learned Judicial Member cancelled levy of penalty by observing that the initiation of penalty proceedings subsequent to the completion of assessment is bad in law apart from the fact that the transaction is genuine and the default was on account of ignorance of relevant provisions of law which constitutes a reasonable cause; On the other hand, the learned Accountant Member was of the view that all the parties to whom repayments were made are residing in Srikakulam and have proper banking facilities and in the absence of any proof to the contrary, it cannot be cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee firm are directed against the common order dt.27.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajahmundry, and they pertain to the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. As the issue involved in both the appeals is common, I proceed to dispose of these appeals by a combined order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of running a Nursing Home in the name and style of M/s. Arthi Nursing Home. In respect of previous years relevant to assessment years under consideration the assessee declared taxable income of Rs. 45,540/- and Rs. 42,800/- respectively net of partners remuneration and interest on capital and depreciation. Though the returns were originally processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, consequent to survey operations conducted on 20.12.2002 notices were issued under Section 142 of the Act and cases were taken up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
Reported in : (2007)111TTJVisakha109
1. This appeal by Revenue and cross-objection by assessee against the order dt. 22nd March, 2002 of learned CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad, in block assessment for the period 1st April, 1989 to 10th Dec, 1999 raise the following grounds: 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) within the time-limit of 12 months is only a technical flaw and on that only count the assessment need not be quashed. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have taken into consideration the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh according to which the non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) within the stipulated was only a procedural irregularity and the assessment made could be irregular but not void or illegal. The learned CIT(A) ought to have taken note of the apex Court's opinion and sustained the assessment. 1. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that there is no undisclosed income as contemplated under the provisions of Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
Reported in : (2007)111TTJVisakha101
1. This appeal by assessee is against the order dt. 24th Sept., 1999 of learned Dy. GIT, Central Circle, Visakhapatnam made under Section 143(3) r/w Section 158BD of the Act. Following grounds have been raised in appeal. 1. The block assessment made by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle, Visakhapatnam is illegal and improper. 2. The material seized in third party premises does not belong to the appellant. Hence issue of notice under Section 158BC r/w Section 158BD is not correct. 3. The valuation of variation of stock by the assessing authority is not correct. 4. (i) The addition towards unexplained investment in purchases is also not correct. (ii) Moreover the AO is not correct in taking the material that was seized from the third party business premises as that of the appellant. (iii) Alternatively it is contended that the AO is not correct in taking the total valuation of the purchase instead of peak amount. (iv) The AO should have telescoping the addition to the stock deficit to stock pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
Reported in : (2007)106ITD326Visakha
1. These two appeals, filed at the instance of the assessee - firm, are directed against the common order dt.7.2.2003 passed by the C.I.T.(Appeals)-I, Visakhapatnam. The issue involved in both the appeals being common, they are disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee firm, during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of steel and cement. It purchased mini vans for the purpose of transportation of steel and cement to the destination of its customers. The assessee claimed that the material purchased from the assessee was supplied to the customers on a package deal, which includes cost of the material as well as transport cost whereas in the cases of some customers, transport cost is separately charged. Under these circumstances, it was contended that the vehicles were run on hire on which higher rate of depreciation is allowable. The vehicles were plied on hire for the person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
Reported in : (2006)101TTJVisakha840
1. The Revenue by this miscellaneous petition, dt. 8th July, 2005, has requested for recalling of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.136/Vizag/2005, dt. 26th April, 2005.2. The revised MA was filed by the Revenue on 23rd Jan., 2006, and it is submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that in the revised petition, the claim is the same, i.e., for recalling/cancellation of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.163/Vizag/2005. The petition is revised only to bring out the facts properly and precisely before the Tribunal.3. At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the regular assessment for the assessment year under consideration was completed on 29th March, 2004 by Asstt. CIT Circle-I, Khammam. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), Vijayawada, who allowed part relief to the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before Visakhapatnam Bench on 22nd Feb., 2005.That the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench disposed of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
Reported in : (2006)99TTJVisakha424
1. These appeals since involve common issue, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts in all the cases are same, except change in the figures.These appeals have been filed against the order, of the CIT(A) by which the CIT(A) firstly upheld the charging of interest Under Section 220(2) and secondly, the CIT(A) has held that there was no mistake apparent on record.3. For the reference we are taking the brief facts in respect of only one case, i.e., Pedda Sankara Rao. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was originally completed Under Section 143(3) r/w Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 on 31st Oct., 2002 where the AO charged interest Under Section 220(2). The assessee subsequently filed petition Under Section 154 contending that the interest charged Under Section 220(2) for not paying self-assessment tax at the time of filing of return for the block period cannot be levied as no demand notice was served for the payment of the tax. The provis...
Tag this Judgment!