Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat cochin Page 8 of about 502 results (0.133 seconds)

Jun 24 2003 (TRI)

Connemara Business Associates Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)271ITR50(Coch.)

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1995-96. This appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(Appeals), Kochi dated 9.4.1999 and arises out of the regular assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961.2. In the course of assessment, the assessing officer found that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 8,76,040/- as travelling and conveyance expenses. This amount claimed by the assessee did also include the expenses relating to two foreign tours undertaken by the assessee. The first tour was to U.S.A. and the second one was to European countries. The expenses of Rs. 57,325/- accounted by the assessee towards USA tour was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that it was not incurred for the purpose of assessee's business. The expenses claimed for the second tour to European countries amounted to Rs. 5,69,241/-. On a detailed examination the assessing officer found that the assessee had refunded Rs. 1,45,555/- as...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2003 (TRI)

Mr. M. Damodaran Nair Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)90ITD758(Coch.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is for the assessment year 1995-96. The only effective ground urged by the assessee in this appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) treating the lease rent earned by the assessee by sub-letting the property as income from house property. It is the case of the assessee that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that the assessee was carrying on business activity by taking property on lease and sub-letting the property to others apart from the business of builders, money lenders, etc.2. In this case, the return filed by the assessee was accepted under Section 143(1)(a) on 19-2-96. Subsequently, it was found that the assessee had returned the rental income under the head business and claimed expenses therefrom. Accordingly, it was held that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and action under Section 147 was initiated by issuing notice Under Section on 24-11-97. In reply, the assessee stated that the return filed o...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2003 (TRI)

The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Popular Automobiles

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)90ITD333(Coch.)

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 1995-96. This appeal is filed against the order of the CIT (Appeals), Kochi dated 21.1.1999. The appel arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Cross-objection is filed by the assessee.2. The assessee in this case is a partnership firm engaged in the business of purchase and sale of automobile spare parts. The assessee-firm filed its return of income on 31.11.1995 admitting an income of Rs. 76,84,450/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) through the intimation dated 29.1.1996. The return was initially accepted. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny by issue of a notice under Section 143(2) on 19.3.1996. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer passed an order under Section 142(2A), requiring the assessee to get its accounts audited by the Chartered Accountants nominated by the Commission...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2002 (TRI)

Noble Pictures Vs. Joint Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)90ITD248(Coch.)

These appeals are by the assessee and pertain to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. They are directed against the order dated 13-11-2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Kochi, confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,68,800 and Rs. 3,14,800 respectively for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, levied under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1990-91 & 1991-92 disclosing a loss of Rs. 24,42,200 and Rs. 24,68,020 respectively. Returns were processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 21-3-1991 and 23-9-1991 respectively.Subsequently the assessments were completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee produced a feature film named 'Oru Sayahnathinte Swapnom' and was released on 28-9-1989 and another feature film named 'Arangu' which was released on 22-3-1991. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee was required to file a statement in Form No.52A, cont...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2002 (TRI)

Noble Pictures Vs. the Jt. Commr. of Income-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)268ITR109(Coch.)

1. These appeals are by the assessee and pertain to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. They are directed against the order dated 13-11-2000 of the CIT (Appeals)-II, Kochi, confirming he penalty of Rs. 3,68,800/- and Rs. 3,14,800/- respectively for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, levied under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1990-91 & 1991-92 disclosing a loss of Rs. 24,42,200/- and Rs. 24,68,020/- respectively. Returns were processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 21-03-1991 and 23-09-1991 respectively. Subsequently the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee produced a feature film named 'Oru Sayahnathinte Swapnom' and was released on 28-9-1989 and another feature film named 'Arangu' which was released on 22-3-1991. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee was required to file a statement in form No. 5...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2002 (TRI)

Shri John Varghese, Dev. Officer, Vs. the Jt. Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)89ITD311(Coch.)

Where the assessing officer allowed 30 per cent deduction to the assessee Development Officer of LIC out of incentive earned by him following on decision of jurisdictional Tribunal available at the time of passing of order by the assessing officer, and same was not disturbed by the higher court, the order passed by the assessment could not be termed as erroneous, therefore, Commissioner's order under section 263 was not valid.Where the assessing officer allowed 30 per cent deduction to the assessee Development Officer of LIC out of incentive earned by him following on decision of jurisdictional Tribunal available at the time of passing of order by the assessing officer, and same was not disturbed by the higher court, the order passed by the assessment could not be termed as erroneous, therefore, Commissioner's order under section 263 was not valid.CIT v. T.K. Ginarajan's Development Officer LIC of India (2002) 253 ITR 463 (Ker) that were not going into the eligibility of the claim for...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2002 (TRI)

Radha Picture Palace Vs. Deputy Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)90ITD220(Coch.)

granted registration to assessee-firm without satisfying condition precedent If the assessing officer, in spite of the fact that the conditions not met by the assessee takes the status of the assessee wrongly as a registered firm, the only recourse to the revenue against such erroneous order is to resort to section 263. By taking a wrong status, the assessee is getting an undue advantage. Assessee is paying tax at a low rate, which means the revenue is affected prejudicially; that is because of the wrong status adopted by the assessing officer. Further, the revenue cannot appeal against the order of the assessing officer directly. It is for this reason that the Commissioner is empowered under section 263 to revise the erroneous and prejudicial order passed by the assessing officer.If the assessing officer, in spite of the fact that the conditions not met by the assessee takes the status of the assessee wrongly as a registered firm, the only recourse to the revenue against such erroneo...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2002 (TRI)

Radha Picture Palace Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)85TTJ(Coch.)146

1. These appeals by the assessee pertain to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the I.T. Act setting aside the assessment orders and directing to pass fresh assessments in accordance with law taking into account the provisions of Section 184(5) of the I.T. Act.2. On perusal of the records, the Commissioner of Income-tax found that the orders passed by the assessing officer for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the following reasons: 3. Assessee did not file the return either under Sub-section (1) or (4) or (5) of Section 139 and as such, there was clear failure on the part of the assessee and the provisions of Section 184(5) were attracted in this case. The Commissioner of Income-tax held that the assessee's status could not be taken as a registered firm but only as an AOP as contemplaed under Section 184(5...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2002 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)267ITR52(Coch.)

1. These appeals, all by the Department, have been placed before the Special Bench in the following circumstances.2. The assessee is a scheduled bank. In respect of the assessment years under consideration, it claimed deduction in respect of debts written off under the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The AO found that the assessee had made provision for bad and doubtful debts and that the actual write-off of debts was less than the provision and, therefore, in terms of the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii); the assessee was not entitled to any deduction in respect of the write-off. The assessee contended before the AO that the amount actually written off in the books as bad debts represented non-rural advances, that the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) would apply only in respect of rural advances written off as bad and, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the actual amount written off is less than the provision for bad and doubtful debts, the assessee would be entitled to ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2002 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Choice Trading Corporation Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2004)90ITD1(Coch.)

1. This appeal "by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee pertain to the asst. yr. 1994-95. Ground Nos. 2.1 to 2.6 urged by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) disallowing interest payments made by the assessee on borrowed funds utilised for the purpose of- (e) loan given to M/s Choice Foundation which was running a school at Ernakulam.2. Assessee filed the return disclosing Nil income for the year under consideration, the same was processed under Section 143(1)(a).Subsequently, the return was processed under Section 143(3).3. Assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested. Assessee had a construction wing and the same was transferred to a wholly-owned subsidiary company known as Choice Estate & Construction Co. Ltd. by virtue of a resolution dt. 8th June, 1993.Assessee also derives income from its Sea Food Division, Shipping Division and Software Division besides income from interest on deposits, dividends, profit on sale o...

Tag this Judgment!


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