Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat ahmedabad Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.131 seconds)

Jul 25 2005 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Mugatlal B and Sons

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : Jul-25-2005

Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Ahd.)1042

..... the certificate, it was also mentioned as the assessee-firm was builder and distributor of tata pipe and genith pipe and fixtures, they have to pass on secret commission to mediators. our attention was also drawn to the affidavit of shri govardhan, proprietor of moti builders & organisers who was carrying on business as a builder and developer of immovable property for ..... of the nature of business the assessee was involved, there was a general practice that secret commission is given by the traders or suppliers to the purchasers or to the mediators of the purchasers. as per the certificate in the activities of builder and developer, plumber used to purchase on behalf of developer or builder, therefore generally trader passes on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2005 (TRI)

Acqua Minerals (P.) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit (Assessment)-sr-1

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : May-31-2005

Reported in : (2005)96ITD417(Ahd.)

the principal issue in the present appeals of the assessee-company relates to the denial of deduction under section 80-i of the income tax act, 1961 ('act' hereinafter), which have been decided by the cit(a)-v, ahmedabad vide his consolidated order dated 27-12-1996, for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95. the revenue is in appeal in respect of one of the issues arising therefrom.the assessee-company set up a new industrial undertaking during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1990-91, for the 'manufacture' of 'demineralised water' in the brand name 'bisleri', though claimed deduction under section 80-i of the act in respect of its profits for the first time only for the assessment year 1991-92 as it had no positive income in the first year. the assessing officer, after carefully considering the submissions made by the assessee in respect of the scope of its operations, and which find mention, along with his own arguments/ reasoning, in his assessment orders for the relevant years, concluded that the assessee being engaged only in 'purification' of drinking water (for hygienic reasons), the industrial activity involved therein does not amount to 'manufacture' as contemplated under the act, and as such, is not eligible for deduction under section 80-1 of the act. the cit(a), before whom the matter travelled at the instance of the assessee, concurred with the findings of the assessing officer, again, after a detailed discussion vide his consolidated impugned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2005 (TRI)

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : Sep-30-2005

Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Ahd.)985

1. these are four appeals two by the assessee and two by the revenue.one appeal by the assessee is against the order of the cit and the others including two by the revenue are against the orders of the cit(a). they all relate to asst. yr. 1993-94 and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. the assessment was completed on 29th march, 1996. the assessee filed appeal against the assessment order. when the appeal was pending, the cit on perusal of the record, felt that the order of assessment was erroneous insofar as the same was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue in respect of certain items. the cit, therefore, gave a notice to the assessee under section 263 and set aside the assessment on various issues with certain directions. the appeal in ita no.949/ahd/1998, is against the revision order of the cit, central-ii, chennai. the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order was disposed of by the cit(a) on 24th march, 1999. two cross-appeals (ita nos. 780 and 991/ahd/1999) are against this order of the cit(a).ao made fresh order in compliance with direction of cit, and the appeal in ita no. 1056/ahd/1999 is against the order of cit(a) disposing of an appeal against this consequential order of the ao.3. according to the cit, the ao has not made complete enquiry with reference to certain issues and his failure to make such enquiry has made the order of the ao erroneous and has caused prejudice to the interests of the revenue. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2005 (TRI)

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Deputy Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : Sep-30-2005

Reported in : (2005)97ITD125(Ahd.)

these are four appeals two by the assessee and two by the revenue. one appeal by the assessee is against the order of the cit and the others including two by the revenue are against the orders of the cit(a). they all relate to assessment year 1993-94 and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.the assessment was completed on 29-3-1996. the assessee filed appeal against the assessment order. when the appeal was pending, the cit on perusal of the record, felt that the order of assessment was erroneous insofar as the same was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue in respect of certain items. the cit, therefore, gave a notice to the assessee under section 263 and set aside the assessment on various issues with certain directions. the appeal in ita no. 949/ahd/1998, is against the revision order of the cit, central-ii, chennai. the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order was disposed of by the cit(a) on 24-3-1999. two cross-appeals (ita nos. 780 and 991/ahd/1999) are against this order of the cit(a). assessing officer made fresh order in compliance with direction of cit, and the appeal in ita no. 1056/ahd/1999 is against the order of cit(a) disposing of an appeal against this consequential order of the assessing officer.according to the cit, the assessing officer has not made complete enquiry with reference to certain issues and his failure to make such enquiry has made the order of the assessing officer erroneous and has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2005 (TRI)

The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Bijal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : Oct-28-2005

Reported in : (2007)108ITD432(Ahd.)

1. this is an appeal by the revenue directed against the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals)-iii, ahmedabad ("cit(a)" for short) dated 1-2-2000, and the assessment year under reference is (a.y.) 1995-96.2. the only effective ground of appeal relates to the deletion of disallowance of long term capital loss of rs. 19,61,617 incurred by the assessee on sale of 27410 equity shares in rustom mills & industries ltd. ("rmil" for short), a sister concern, by the learned cit(a) vide the impugned order, as: 1. the ld. cit(a) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of long term capital loss of rs. 19,61,617/- incurred to the assessee on sale of 27,410 equity shares of rmil to its sister concern.3.1 the facts of the case are that the assessee earned a short-term and long-term capital gain of rs. 23,87,553 during the relevant previous year, being financial year 1994-95, as also incurred a long-term capital loss of rs. 25,03,417, including the impugned loss of rs. 19,61,617. the a.o., during the course of assessment proceedings, observed in respect of this loss, as under: (a) rmil, a group concern, was a sick company and under liquidation through the process of being wound-up under the supervision of the jurisdictional high court; (b) the shares stood sold only at the fag-end of the previous year, i.e., on 21-3-1995, at a consideration of rs. 1 per share, to m/s. arohi consultants pvt. ltd., another sister concern; (c) the said shares stood sold, through .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2005 (TRI)

Smartchem Technologies Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : Jul-28-2005

Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Ahd.)818

1. both these appeals by the assessee are against the order of the cit(a), baroda, dt. 14th aug., 2003 and 22nd feb., 2005, respectively.2. the grounds taken therein are quite argumentative, but at the time of hearing, the parties came to an agreement that the issues involved in these two appeals of the assessee are as under: (i) the first issue relates to the assessee's claim of deduction of an expenditure of rs. 6 crores claimed to have been paid, as non-compete fees to m/s vbc industries ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "vbc") and its founder member, mr. m.v.v.s. murthy, after having purchased vbc's plant for manufacturing nitric acid and ammonium nitrate situated at ponnada srikakulam district, andhra pradesh. (ii) the second issue relates to the consideration of delayed payment of employees' contribution to pf as not deductible under section 36(1)(va) of the act. (iii) the third issue relates to disallowance of assessee's claim of deduction of the amounts paid on account of employees' contribution to pf after due dates. (iv) the fourth issue relates to assessee's claim of depreciation @ 100 per cent in respect of items of plant and machinery entitled to depreciation @ 100 per cent, but made for the first time before the cit(a).2.1 issues involved in ita no. 654/ahd/2005 for asst. yr. 2002-03 the issues involved in this appeal were admitted to be read as under: (i) validity of proceedings under section 154 of the act, 1961, by the ao for amendment of assessment under .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2005 (TRI)

Acqua Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : May-31-2005

Reported in : (2005)279ITR106(Ahd.)

1. the principal issue in the present appeals of the assessee-company.relates to the denial of deduction under section 80-i of the it act, 1961 ("act" hereinafter), which have been decided by the cit(a)-v, ahmedabad, vide his consolidated order dt. 27th dec., 1996, for the asst. yrs. 1991-92 to 1994-95. the revenue is in appeal in respect of one of the issues arising therefrom.2. the assessee-company set up a new industrial undertaking during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1990-91, for the "manufacture" of "demineralised water" in the brand name "bisleri", though claimed, deduction under section 80-i of the act in respect of its profits for the first time only for the asst. yr. 1991-92 as it had no positive income in the first year. the ao, after carefully considering the submissions made by the assessee in respect of the scope of its operations, and which find mention, along with his own arguments/reasoning, in his assessment orders for the relevant years, concluded that the assessee being engaged only in "purification" of drinking water (for hygienic reasons), the industrial activity involved therein does not amount to "manufacture" as contemplated under the act, and as such, is not eligible for deduction under section 80-i of the act. the cit(a), before whom the matter travelled at the instance of the assessee, concurred with the findings of the ao, again, after a detailed discussion vide his consolidated impugned order, citing case law, both to meet the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2005 (TRI)

Jt. Cit, Spl. Range 7 Vs. Sirhind Steel Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : Sep-05-2005

Reported in : (2005)279ITR128(Ahd.)

1. this is an appeal filed by the revenue and is directed against the order of cit(a) dated 29^th january, 1999 for asstt. year 1996-97. 1. the ld. cit(a) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of rs. 3,71,067/- made under section 35d.3. the assessee being a company is entitled to amortization of certain preliminary expenses as per the provisions of section 35d of it act, 1961 (act). it issued a public issue during the year under consideration of 11,40,000 shares and incurred expenditure of rs. 47,12,438/- thereon and thus 1/10^th of such expenditure were claimed to be allowable under the provisions of section 35d of the act. thus an expenditure of rs. 4,71,244/- was claimed. according to the ao, assessee could claim such expenditure under section 35d subject to upper limit of 1/10^th of 2 1/2% of capital employed or cost of project whatever is higher as per the provisions of section 35d(3) of the act.he further found that capital employed is defined in explanation (b) of section 35d(3) of the act and such capital employed according to the definition given in aforementioned explanation is a sum aggregate of the issued share capital, debentures and long term borrowings as on the last date of previous year. from the balance sheet ao found that issued share capital of the assessee was only rs. 4,00,71,000/- and the cost of project was rs. 2,69,27,751/-. therefore, he took the issued share capital being the higher amount and concluded that assessee is eligible for 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //