Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat amritsar Page 6 of about 360 results (0.218 seconds)

Apr 13 2006 (TRI)

Sehdev Tools Mfg. Corpn. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Asr.)140

1. This order shall dispose of all the above cross-appeals and the cross-objections because the same pertain to the same assessee for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88.2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the observations and details submitted in the paper book.3. The facts of the case are that for the asst. yr. 1986-87, the return declaring total income at Rs. 16,860 was filed on 26th Sept., 1986. The assessment was completed under Section 143(1) on 15th Dec, 1986. In the asst. yr. 1987-88 return of income was filed on 31st Aug., 1987 declaring total income of Rs. 15,300 and the assessment was completed under Section 143(1) on 17th Sept., 1987. The status of the assessee is registered firm.The AO observed that it came to his notice that the assessee-firm had got two advance licences under the Duty Exemption Scheme. On the basis of complaint received, it was revealed that the assessee has sold these licences in black and collected huge bla...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2006 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Mukand Lal and Sons

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)103ITD41(Asr.)

1. This order shall dispose of all the above five appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee against the common order of the CIT(A), Bhatinda dated 7-11-2000 for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97.2. I have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the observations of the authorities below and material available on record.3. The learned representatives of both the parties stated that the facts are common in all the appeals. The learned representatives mainly argued the appeal of the assessment year 1993-94. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer framed the reassessments in the name of M/s. Mukand Lal & Sons, Petrol Pump, G.T. Road, Ferozepur through Shri Lakhwinder Singh S/o Shri Gurdev Singh in the status of A.O.P. under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee is stated to running a petrol pump. No return was furnished under Section 139. Notice under Section 148 was issued after recording the reasons which was served upon...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2006 (TRI)

Skyline Silk Mills Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Asr.)798

1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against two orders (both dt. 22nd Jan., 2004) of CIT(A), Jammu with Hqrs. at Amritsar, for the asst. yr. 1991-92. In ITA No. 161 of 2004, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,500 under Section 271D of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and in ITA No. 162 of 2004, the assessee has challenged levy of penalty of Rs. 81,048 imposed under Section 271E of the Act. Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee sought to withdraw ground No. 2 common in both the appeals, where the assessee has challenged the order for imposing penalty on the ground that the same had become time-barred. He submitted that in view of decision of Tribunal, Chandigarh (Special Bench) in the case of Diwan Chand Amtit Lal v. Dy. CIT (2005) 98 TTJ (Chd)(SB) 947 : ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2006 (TRI)

Davinder Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)104ITD325(Asr.)

1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the CIT(A), Bhatinda, for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. In this appeal, the assessee has taken following five effective grounds : 1. That the learned CIT(A) is not justified in making the addition of Rs. 60,87,326 as the amount payable to the various agriculturists by resorting to the provisions of Section 28 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) is also not justified in making addition of Rs. 3,86,563 on account of alleged diversion of income under the head Dami by misconceiving the facts of the case. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the trade practice as well as the legal aspects put forward during the proceedings before him. 4. That CIT(A) has also not considered detailed submissions and arguments which were advanced before him and summarily rejected the submissions without going into the facts that the purchases from agriculturist is strictly controlled and regulated by ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2006 (TRI)

Kiranjit Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Asr.)424

1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the CIT, Patiala, passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee, Sh. S.K.Bansal, submitted that this appeal relates to an order passed by the CIT, Patiala, under Section 263 of the Act and does not relate to income computed by the AO. Therefore, the case of the assessee is covered under the residuary Clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 253 of the Act. He submitted that the assessee was required to pay only a fee of Rs. 500. As against the same, the assessee had paid a fee of Rs. 5,521. The assessee vide his counsel's application dt. 31st Jan., 2006 requested for refund of the excess fee paid of Rs. 5,021. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned Counsel drew our attention to the booklet titled as "A Fine Balance : Law and Procedure before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal" published by All India Federation of ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2006 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Modern Coal Company

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)103TTJ(Asr.)726

1. By this order, I shall dispose of this appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst, yr. 1986-87.2. The only effective issue raised in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting penalty of Rs. 1,05,566 imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, (in short 'the Act'). The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income within time allowed under Section 139(1) of the Act.The AO, therefore, issued notice under Section 139(2) of the Act on 17th Dec, 1986. This notice also failed to elicit any response from the AO. However, subsequently, the assessee filed a return on 18th March, 1989, declaring therein loss of Rs. 1,54,647 which was filed in response to a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 on a total income of Rs. 20,57,326 in the status of an AOP. This assessment ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2006 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Balinder Jason Mann

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Asr.)125

1. These four appeals of the Revenue and four COs of the assessee have been filed against four orders, all dt. 6th July, 2004 of CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst. yr. 2002-03. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. At the outset, the COs filed by the assessee are only supportive of the orders of the CIT(A). No grievance has been projected therein.Therefore, COs are not maintainable and these are dismissed.3. The Revenue has moved an application on 27th Feb., 2006 for admission of the following two additional grounds of appeal in all its appeals : 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee by entertaining additional evidence without giving the AO any opportunity of being heard as mandatorily required to be given under Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in condoni...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2006 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Nauhria Rice Mills

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)103TTJ(Asr.)245

1. By this order, I shall dispose of this appeal of the Revenue filed against the order dt. 21st April, 1998 of CIT(A), Bathinda, for the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. It was noticed that the order of CIT(A) was served on 12th May, 1998 and this appeal has been filed late by 2708 days, i.e., more than 7 years. The CIT-III, Ludhiana, vide his letter dt. 29th Sept., 2005 has requested for condonation of delay stating therein that ITO, Ward-2, Ferozepur, had sent the appeal to Tribunal through Shri Faquir Chand, Chowkidar, for delivering the same to the Tribunal vide his letter dt.8th July, 1998. The appeal papers indicated that the same was delivered on 8th July, 1998. When asked, Shri Faquir Chand is unable to_remember the name of a person to whom it was delivered. Therefore, the CIT has pleadedthat the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. These submissions made in the application were repeated by the learned Departmental Representative at the time of hearing of the appeal.However, his a...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2006 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Chaman Lal Nagpal

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Asr.)890

1. This order shall dispose of both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the asst, yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 on common questions/grounds of appeal.2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the observations of the authorities below and details submitted in the paper book. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar dt. 29th Aug., 2003 for the asst. yr. 1995-96 challenging the deletion of addition of Rs. 16,58,155 made by the AO under the head "Capital gains".3.1 The facts are that the return was filed by the assessee on 31st Aug., 1995 declaring income of Rs. 8,29,513 plus agriculture income of Rs. 25,000. Assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and returned income was accepted. Subsequently, the case was reopened by the AO after recording the reasons and notice under Section 148 was issued on 30th May, 2001 after obtaining approval of the CIT, Jalandhar. The assessee in response thereof...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2006 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Dr. Amrit Lal Adlakha

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Asr.)271

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana dt. 17th Sept., 2004 for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. I have heard the. learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the observations of the authorities below. I take this Departmental appeal for the purpose of disposal on each ground as under. (I) The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing claim for deduction of interest under Section 24 at Rs. 1,00,000, being not admissible under the head "Income from house property" on the plot adjoining the hospital purchased by the assessee after availing loan from the bank.3.1 This ground relates to the share in the land and building adjoining to Adlakha Hospital. The AO recorded the facts regarding this property and mentioned that this property was an elongated plot measuring 168 feet by 40 feet approximately. This plot is situated at the Race Course Road and thus it had a front width of 40 feet. This plot had vac...

Tag this Judgment!


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