Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat amritsar Page 2 of about 360 results (0.147 seconds)

Sep 21 2007 (TRI)

Tarlochan Singh and Sons (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Asr.)82

1. This is a bunch of four appeals filed by the assessee against consolidated order of the CIT(A), Bhatinda, for the asst. yrs. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. In the memorandum of appeals, the assessee has raised following identical grounds: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 2. That on law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,34,200 without appreciating that as per amended proviso to Section 275 w.e.f. 1st June, 2003, the penalty has already time-barred. 3. That on law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) amo...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2007 (TRI)

Panchvati Motors Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Asr.)197

1. These cross appeals--one by the assessee and another of the Revenue have been filed against the order of the CIT(A), Bhatinda, for the asst. yr. 2000-01. Since the issues involved in the cross appeals are interrelated and arise from the order of the CIT(A), these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee had made a request for admission of additional ground.However, at the time of hearing of the appeals, the learned Counsel for the assessee, Sh K.R. Jain, requested to withdraw such request.Therefore, the request is considered as withdrawn.3. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the following three grounds have been taken: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,89,488 on sale of vehicles and Rs. 5,01,132 on account of sale of spare parts without appreciating that the AO has not pointed out any defect in the books of accounts maintained in the regular cour...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2007 (TRI)

Yogesh Kumar and Sons (Huf) Vs. the Assessing Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Asr.)696

1. This is assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 against the order dated 29-5-2006 passed by the learned CIT(A), Bhatinda. The following grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment framed Under Section 147/148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. That the notice issued Under Section 148 of the Act has not been served according to the provisions of Section 282 of the Income tax Act, 1961 so the reassessment is liable to be quashed. So even if not raised at he first instance before the AO, it can be raised before the appellate authority at a later stage. 3. That the statement of Smt. Sukhdev Kaur Donor was recorded at the back of the assessee on 21-11-2005 so cannot be relied upon. So no adverse inference can be taken against the assessee. 4. That Sh. V.K. Mittal Advocate was not present on behalf of the donee at the time of recording of these statements of Smt. Suk...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2007 (TRI)

Sujan Singh Vs. Assessing Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Asr.)818

1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of CIT(A), Bhatinda, for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The only effective issue raised in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the AO under Section 271A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called for the books of account and observed that the assessee had not maintained quantitative stock register and sale bills were also not produced. He observed that Section 44AA(2) provides that every person carrying on business or profession shall, if his income from business or profession exceeded Rs. 1,20,000 or his total sales in business or profession exceeded Rs. 10,00,000 in any one of the three assessment years immediately preceding the previous year, keep and maintain such books of account and other documents which may enable the AO to compute his total income in accordance ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2007 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Om Motors Store

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Asr.)393

1. By this order, I shall dispose of this appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. In this appeal, the Revenue has taken following two effective grounds: (i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,454 made under Section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment in bogus purchases. (ii) While allowing the aforesaid relief, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in admitting additional evidence without giving an opportunity to the AO to examine the same and to rebut it.3. The facts relating to this case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called for copies of accounts of the assessee as appearing in the books of account of M/s J.K. Industries and Birla Tyres from whom the assessee made purchases of tyres. The AO observed purchases of Rs. 1,89,454 made from those parties were not included in the purchase...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 15 2007 (TRI)

Ashwani Kumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Asr.)890

1. This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the block assessment order of the Asstt. CIT, Cir. 1(1), Jalandhar, for the block period from 1st April, 1985 to 10th Oct., 1995.2. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee vide his letter dt. 24th Feb., 2005 requested for admission of the following additional ground of appeal: 1. That the learned AO has erred in making the following additions since no evidence has been found during the course of search: (a) Addition on account of foreign remittance in the name of self and wife. (b) The other additions were also not liable to be made since no evidence has been found during the course of search and treatment of same as undisclosed income on the basis of presumption is uncalled for.3. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature for which all relevant facts are already on record. The case does not warrant any further i...

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2007 (TRI)

Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand and Sons Vs. the Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Asr.)586

1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against two orders of CIT(A), Bhatinda, for the assessment years 2001-2002 & 2002-2003.Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2 First, we take up appeal for the assessment year 2001-2002. In this appeal, the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Asstt. order dated 26.03.2004 served by affixture on 01.04.2004 is barred by limitation as the same was never properly served in accordance with Order 5 Rule 30 of CP.Code. 2. That both worthy CIT(A), Amritsar and the learned ITO, Ward 5(3), Amritsar have grossly erred in treating the rental income of the assessee at Rs. 13,95,116/- as "Income from House Property" instead of "Income from Business" as claimed by the assessee. 3. That both worthy CIT(A) and the Ld. ITO Ward 5(3), Amritsar have grossly erred in not allowing expenditure incurr...

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2007 (TRI)

Smt. Kavita Kapoor Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Asr.)50

1. By this consolidated order, I shall dispose of these two appeals of the assessee filed against two orders of CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst. yr. 1988-89 as the issues involved in both the appeals are common and arise from the same orders of CIT(A) and I find it convenient to do so.2. The issue raised in ITA No. 270 of 2006 relates to sustaining the penalty of Rs. 93,060 imposed by the AO under s. 271(1)(a) for late filing of return and in ITA No. 269 of 2006 relates to sustaining the penalty of Rs. 94,000 imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short ' the Act'). The facts of the case are that the assessee had disclosed jewellery weighing 955 gms under the VDIS Scheme, 1997 for the asst. yr. 1988-89. The declaration was accompanied by an affidavit dt. 3rd Dec, 1997 before the CIT, Jalandhar. However, the assessee did not pay tax on the income disclosed under the VDIS. Therefore, the CIT treated the declaration under the VDIS as never to have been ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2007 (TRI)

Naresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2008)298ITR135(Asr.)

1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the block assessment order dt. 23rd March, 2006 passed by the Asstt. CIT, Pathankot, for the block period from 1st April, 1986 to 11th Sept., 1996.2. In the original grounds of appeal filed along with memorandum of appeal, following grounds relating to the same issue being addition of Rs. 10 lacs on account of two FDRs in the names of Sh. Anil Kumar and Sh. Rajiv Kumar have been taken, which are as under: 1. That the learned Asstt. CIT, Circle, Pathankot has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, grossly erred in law in passing order under Section 144 and in making addition of Rs. 10 lacs on account of 2 FDRs made in the names of Sh. Anil Kumar and Sh. Rajiv Kumar. 2. That the observations made are against facts and are based on surmises and conjectures and do not afford legal justification to the addition made. 3. That the peak of Rs. 54 lacs worked out on the basis of 21 accounts included the 2 FDRs in question and ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2007 (TRI)

Dream Land Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Asr.)850

1. This is assessee's appeal against the order dt. 30th Sept., 2005 passed under Section 12A(a) of the IT Act, 1961 by the learned CIT, J&K, Jammu. The following grounds have been taken: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration filed by the appellant and that too without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and on the basis of such considerations which are not germane to the issue before him. 2. In any view of the matter and in any case, action of learned CIT in refusing the registration under Section 12A is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the appellant ought to have been granted registration under that section.2. The facts are that the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10A with the learned CIT, on 18th March, 2005, for registration under Section 12A(a) of the IT Act, 1...

Tag this Judgment!


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