Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat bangalore Page 1 of about 556 results (0.130 seconds)

Jun 15 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Mspl Ltd., 117, Baldota Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, ...

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

George George K., Judicial Member1. This stay petition is filed by the assessee company, seeking extension of stay granted vide order of Tribunal dated 09.03.2012 in S.P. Nos.28 to 31/B/2012 for a period of 90 days i.e., till 09th June, 2012. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the earlier stay granted by the Tribunal expired on 9th June, 2012. He submitted that hearing of the appeal in question was taken up from time to time and adjourned in view of one of the issues pending before the Mumbai Special Bench. The appeal of the assessee now stands posted to 24th July, 2012. It was submitted by the learned AR that the delay in disposal of the appeal cannot be attributable to assessee; therefore, in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ronuk Industries Ltd. 333 ITR 99 and the order of the Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Tata Communications Ltd. v ACIT 9 ITR (Trib) 1, the stay is to be extended, though beyond the period of 365 days. He submit...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2011 (TRI)

Mspl Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

ORDERGeorge George K., J.M.1. These stay petitions are filed by the Assessee, a limited company, seeking extension of stay granted vide order of Tribunal dated 20.05.2011 in S.P. No. 61 to 64/B/2011.2. The ld. AR for the Assessee submitted that the earlier stay granted by the Tribunal expires on 20th August, 2011 and the appeal now stands posted to 05.09.2011 for hearing and the delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the Assessee company. The two principal issues involved in the appeal are validity of assessment order Under Section 153A of the Act and allowance of deduction in respect of depreciation and maintenance expenses of aircraft. He submitted that the Assessee company has a prima facie good case on merits and its financial position justifies grant of extension of stay. In view of the above, the ld. AR urged for extension of stay in these matters apprehending coercive action from the revenue.3. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The appe...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2007 (TRI)

Bangalore International Airport Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Bang.)477

1. These are four appeals by the assessee instituted against the common orders of the CIT(A)-VI, Bangalore ("C1T(A)" for short) dt. 31st March, 2006. The issues that arise in the present appeals are also common. The common issues as raised by the assessee are on the conclusion of the authorities below about the applicability of Section 195(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with regard to the amounts reimbursed by the assessee to two of its shareholders/promoters on the various expenses incurred by them in connection with the project of international airport at Bangalore.2. The brief facts of the case are that in 1994 the Bangalore International Airport project was conceived as the project of public and private participation. Since the project was located at Bangalore, the Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation ("KSIIDC" for short) on behalf of the State of Karnataka was included as one of the parties and accordingly there was an u...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2007 (TRI)

The Estate Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Bang.)281

1. The assessee firm has filed this appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Bangalore, dt. 31st March, 2006. The grievance of the assessee is with regard to the order of the C1T(A) confirming the imposition of penalty of Rs. 96,41,811 that was levied by the AO with reference to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and the assessee has also challenged the conclusion of the authorities for imposing special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Act on the plea that the accounts of the assessee are superficial and simple with no complexity involved.Further, the assessee has also challenged that the AO had not arrived at any satisfaction for initiation of proceedings for penalty for concealment of income.2. The learned Counsel for assessee, Shri G. Lakshminarasimhan, submitted that consequent to the assessment having been selected for scrutiny, the CIT vide his order dt. 20th March, 2003 directed that the accounts of the assessee be a...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2007 (TRI)

Vemanna Reddy (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Bang.)246

1. This appeal is by the assessee directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-IV, Bangalore dt. 25th Oct., 2004.2. We have heard both sides and perused the records. The assessee had raised the following effective grounds in their appeal: That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in failing to annul the impugned assessment made on non-existing HUF. That the CIT(A) failed to note that notice under Section 148 issued on 19th April, 2000 did not specify the status as HUF. That the CIT(A) failed to note that the joint family ceased to exist even before notice under Section 148 was issued. The AO was made aware of this during assessment proceedings and original shown to him on 30th May, 2000. That the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the additional ground moved in this regard (copy enclosed) without due notice to the assessee. The innocent failure to file a petition under Section 46A by an illiterate agriculturist not exposed to income-tax should not have been used to deny relief. That...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2007 (TRI)

Vemanna Reddy (Huf) Vs. Ito

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

1. This appeal is by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, Bangalore dated 25-10-2004.2. We have heard both sides and perused the records. The assessee had raised the following effective grounds in their appeal: That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in failing to annul the impugned assessment made on non-existing HUF. That the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that notice under Section 148 issued on 19-4-2000 did not specify the status as HUF. That the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that the joint family ceased to exist even before notice under Section 148 was issued. The assessing officer was made aware of this during assessment proceedings and original shown to him on 30-5-2000. That the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the additional ground moved in this regard (copy enclosed) without due notice to the assessee. The innocent failure to file a petition under Section 46A by an illiterate agricu...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2007 (TRI)

i. Gate Global Solutions Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Bang.)1002

1. The assessee has filed the appeals against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Bangalore dt. 19th Dec, 2006 and 6th Jan., 2007. Some of the grounds of appeal for both the assessment years are the same, therefore, these appeals are being decided by a single consolidated order.2. One of the common ground of appeal raised is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding 80 per cent of the uplinking charges are to be reduced from export turnover in arriving at the amount of deduction eligible under Section 10A.3. The learned CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings referred to the definition of export turnover as given in Clause (iv) of Expln. 2 below Section 10A(8). From the consideration received, freight, telecommunication charges or insurance attributable to delivery of software have to be reduced. The learned CIT(A) noticed that no expenditure was reduced from the export turnover. Hence, it was indicated to the learned Authorised Representative that income has to be enhanced...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2007 (TRI)

P. Srinivas Naik Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Bang.)856

1. The assessee has filed the appeals against the common order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-VI, Bangalore, dated 15-6-2007. Since, the grounds of appeal are the same, therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by a single consolidated order.2. A search under Section 132 was conducted on the business/residential premises of Shri L. Sambashiva Reddy, who is the managing director of M/s Saravana Construction (P) Ltd., Bangalore. During the course of search, certain documents showing receipt of huge cash loans, repayment of cash loans and payment of interest on these loans to various parties were found and seized. Shri P. Srinivas Nayak, the assessee also advanced loan to M/s Saravana Construction (P) Ltd. during the period 1-4-1997 to 31-3-2004. The assessing officer has referred to the seized material which indicated the names of the persons who has given cash loan with dates on right hand side, repayment of cash loan by way of installment on the left hand side and interest pai...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 2007 (TRI)

Tata Elxsi Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Bang.)423

1. This appeal is by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Bangalore, dated 24-2-2006.2. We have heard both sides and perused the records. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of distribution of computer systems, designs and development of computer software. The assessee filed return of income for the present assessment year returning income at Rs. 9,11,36,889. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently notice under Section 143(2) was issued and the assessment has been completed on 24-3-2005. The assessee claimed benefits under Section 10A of the Act. While re-computing deduction under Section 10A, the assessing officer had made certain adjustments as under: (a) In the return of income a sum of Rs. 9,88,87,066 was deducted by the appellant while arriving at the figure of export turnover. In addition, the assessee has deducted a further sum of Rs. 4,13,33,000 in computing the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2007 (TRI)

Mr. Giridhar Krishna Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

1. This is an appeal by the assessee, an individual, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (A)-V, Bangalore, dated 31.7.2006, for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The basic issue that arises from the appeal is enumerated in ground No. 3 and the same is reproduced below: The learned Appellant Authority erred in treating the sum of Rs. 87,08,665/- as short-term capital gain, as against the Appellant's claim that it be treated as Long-term capital gain. The Appellate Authority erred in considering the period of holding from the date of exercise of option to the date of sale being less than 12 months for purpose of treating the income as short term capital gain thereby subjecting it to tax at 30% and whereas the Appellant has considered the period of holding from the date of vesting to the date of sale which exceeded 12 months and treated the income as long term capital gain subject to tax at 20% rate and remitted to tax.The other grounds, namely, ground No. 4 onwards are argume...

Tag this Judgment!


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