Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat amritsar Page 5 of about 360 results (0.157 seconds)

Jun 16 2006 (TRI)

Pyramid Software and Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)105ITD305(Asr.)

1. These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against consolidated order dt. 30th Dec., 2003 of CIT(A), Jammu with Hqrs. at Amritsar, for the asst. yrs. 1994-95, 1995-96 & 1996-97. Since the issues involved in these appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The first two common grounds relate to legality and validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated in this case under Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), which read as under: 1. That, whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the AO is justified in invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That in respect of the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred by not holding that the assessment proceedings are null and void on the basis that the notice under Section 148 was issued without any jurisdiction.3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed the r...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 2006 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the J and K Bank Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Asr.)593

1. These are four appeals, out of which three appeals have been filed by the Revenue against orders of CIT(A), Jammu with Hqrs. at Amritsar for the asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980-81 and one appeal is filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A), Jammu with Hqrs. at Amritsar, for the asst. yr. 1983-84. Since the issue raised in all these appeals are common and inter-related, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First, we take up three appeals filed by the Revenue, where identical grievance of the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in allowing deduction of bad debts amounting to Rs. 9,19,339, Rs. 12,68,576 and Rs. 9,90,000 for the asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively. The facts of the case relating to the asst. yr.1977-78 are that the assessee is a banking company engaged in the business of advancing loans to the customers. In the return of income filed, the assessee claime...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 2006 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Max India Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Asr.)1002

1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the CIT(A), Ludhiana, dt. 16th Feb., 2000 for the asst. yrs. 1991-92. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,56,55,355 made on account of product development expenses by holding that these expenses were incurred for developing new product and related to business and were allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. While deleting the disallowance, the learned CIT(A) has disregarded the fact that development of new productBOPP Film was linked with extension of the Assessee's existing business and this fact had been admitted by the assessee-company during the assessment proceedings and accordingly these expenses had been correctly capitalized by the AO under Section 35D(2)(a)of the IT Act.3. The facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of BOPP films and the unit of the assessee commence...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 2006 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Paramjit Singh Makkar

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Asr.)971

1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the CIT(A), Ludhiana, in the block assessment for the block period from 1st April, 1990 to 6th April, 2000. 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 61,61,090 made to assessee's income on account of excess stock found during survey under Section 133A found at the brick kiln of which the assessee is the proprietor. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in directing not to levy surcharge, being block assessment case.2. As regards the first grievance relating to deletion of an addition of Rs. 61,61,090, the facts of the case are that IT Department had carried out search and seizure action under Section 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") both at the business as well as residential premises of the assessee on 6th April, 2000. The assessee was also running proprietary business of brick kiln ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2006 (TRI)

Smt. Anita Malpotra Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Asr.)76

1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the assessee filed against the order of CIT, Amritsar, passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The first effective issue raised in this appeal is that the order of CIT passed without allowing proper opportunity was against principle of natural justice. It was stated before us that hearing of case before GIT, Amritsar, was fixed on 29th Nov., 2004. On this date, the counsel for the assessee went along with written submissions but instead of CIT, Amritsar, accepting the submissions himself, the counsel was directed to see ITO (Judicial). Accordingly, the counsel appeared before the ITO (Judicial), filed written submissions and discussed the case with the ITO. The case was adjourned to 17th Jan., 2005. On this date also, the counsel was directed by the CIT, Amritsar, to see the ITO (Judicial). The learned CIT passed the order under Section 263 on 18th Feb., 2005 without hearing/dis...

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2006 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Hind Samachar Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Asr.)441

1. These are Department's appeals for the asst. yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively, against the consolidated order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar: 2. The common ground raised is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in quashing the order under Section 154 of the IT Act, wherein it has been held that return of income, being not properly signed and verified is invalid, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Agrl. IT v. Keshab Chandra Mandal .3. The facts are that for both the years under consideration, the assessee filed returns of income, the verifications whereof were signed by Shri Kultar Krishan, an employee of the assessee, whereas as per the requirement of Section 140(c) of the IT Act, the managing director or the director of the assessee company was required to sign such verification. The returns were processed under Section 143(1). Refunds were computed and made over to the assessee. Thereafter, notice under Section 154 was issued to the assessee stating that si...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2006 (TRI)

J and K Cigarettes (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Asr.)1028

1. This is bunch of four appeals of the assessee filed against two orders dt, 16th Sept., 2003, (i.e., one consolidated order for the asst. yrs. 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 and another of the same date for the asst. yr. 1992-93) of CIT(A), Jammu, with headquarters at Amritsar. Since the issues involved in all the four appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In these appeals, the assessee has raised following identical grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has acted illegally without any justification by rectifying its own order and disallowing the expenses which the Hon'ble Tribunal has termed as revenue, 2. That the learned CIT(A) seems to be ignorant about law that only those orders can be rectified where there is mistake apparent from record and all the orders are not at the whims and fancies of the CIT(A). 3. That the learned CIT(A) has ignored th...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2006 (TRI)

Ram Bhaj and Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)102ITD93(Asr.)

1. By this order, I shall dispose of this appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the assessment year 2000-01.2. The only effective issue raised in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee that the order of the Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return on 30-11-2000 declaring therein loss of Rs. 4,84,025 in the office of DCIT, Central Circle, Jalandhar. The return was processed by the said Assessing Officer on 21-3-2001 at loss of Rs. 3,14,550. Thereafter, a notice under Section 143(2) was issued by the DCIT, Central Circle on 1-2-2001.Subsequently, the case was transferred to ACIT, Range-I, Jalandhar and later the same was transferred to ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalandhar. Then ITO, Ward 1(4), issued a notice under Section 143(2) on 11-7-2002.Subsequently, the Assessing Officer who completed the assessment under Section 143(3), issued a notice...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2006 (TRI)

Ram Bhaj and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Asr.)695

By this order, I shall dispose of this appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, for the assessment year 2000-01.The only effective issue raised in this appeal is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee that the order of the assessing officer was without jurisdiction. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return on 30-11-2000 declaring therein loss of Rs. 4,84,025 in the office of Dy. CIT, Central Circle, Jalandhar. The return was processed by the said assessing officer on 21-3-2001 at loss of Rs. 3,14,550.Thereafter, a notice under section 143(2) was issued by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle on 1-2-2001. Subsequently, the case was transferred to Assistant Commissioner, Range-1, Jalandhar and later the same was transferred to Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Jalandhar. Then Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), issued a notice under section 143(2) on 11-7-2002.Subsequently, the asses...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2006 (TRI)

The Asstt. C.i.T., Range I Vs. J and K Bank Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)104ITD316(Asr.)

1. This order shall dispose of the M.A. filed by Shri Varinder Mehta, Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Range-I, Jammu in I.T.A. No.253(ASR)/2003 for the assessment year 1999-2000. It is staled in the M.A. that the appellate order dated 29-8-2005 has been served on 14-9-2005 and that the department has filed the additional grounds vide letter dated 2-6-2004 and the said additional ground of appeal filed by the department have not been taken while deciding the case.2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the findings in the appellate order dated 29-8-2005 and also perused the record of the Tribunal.3. The learned D.R. submitted that the additional ground filed by the Addl. C.I.T., Range I, Jammu in the departmental appeal in I.T.A. No.253(ASR)/2003 was not taken up and decided by the Tribunal while deciding the departmental appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000 vide order dated 29-8-2005 and as such there appears a mistake apparent on r...

Tag this Judgment!


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