Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat it Page 1 of about 22 results (0.219 seconds)

Oct 11 2004 (TRI)

ito Vs. Gopichand P. Godhwani

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (2005)1SOT374NULL

The appeals are filed by the revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee. They are directed against a consolidated order of CIT (A) dated 13-10-2000 for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Grounds of appeal filed by the revenue for both the years are identical except difference in figure mentioned in ground No. 1. The figure mentioned in ground No. 1 for assessment year 1998-99 is Rs. 4,13,660. The grounds of appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 1997-98 read as under : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 4,19,068 made by the assessing officer.2. (a)On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that to determine the ALV the nature of payments which have to be deducted from the rent received/receivable are specified in section 23 and therefore assessing officer has rightly deducted the municipal taxes and did not deduct other expenses...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1999 (TRI)

Smt. Usha Hemant Barot and Others Vs. Competent Authority

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (2000)241ITR37ITAT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants under section 12 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, against the order of the Competent Authority, Mumbai, dated March 31, 1998, forfeiting the properties of the appellants under sections 7 and 19 of the SAFEMA.2. Hemant Dadubhai Barot was detained under the provisions of the Conservation of foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by an order dated February 3, 1997. As the appellants are the relatives within the meaning of section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA, notices dated September 18, 1997, under section 6(1) of the Act were issued to them, to show cause why the properties mentioned in the Schedule should not be forfeited as illegally acquired properties. The appellants replied to the said notices stating that the properties are not illegally acquired. The proceedings before the Competent Authority underwent several adjournments at the request of the appellants.Finally, ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1999 (TRI)

Zahid Parwez Vs. Competent Authority

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (2000)241ITR19ITAT

1. This appeal is by Zahid Parwez, partner of Gita Timber Co., Balasore, against the order of the Competent Authority, Calcutta, dated August 27, 1998, made under section 68F(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), confirming the order of the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit, Calcutta, made under section 68F(1) of the NDPS Act, whereby the current account No. CD-691 of Gita Timber Co. in the Balasore Branch was frozen.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was not issued with any notice before the freezing order dated August 11, 1998, was passed under section 68F(1) and that the subsequent order of confirmation is made in violation of the principles of natural justice as the appellant had no opportunity of showing cause as to why the account of the appellant should not frozen.3. The Deputy Director, appearing for the Competent Authority, submitted that there was no requirement under section 68F(...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1999 (TRI)

Gulshan, Ahuja and Others Vs. Competent Authority

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (2000)242ITR34ITAT

1. These three appeals are by the purchasers of 1/3rd of half-share of property bearing No. 3378, Christian Colony, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, against the order of the Competent Authority, New Delhi, dated August 5, 1998, made under section 7(1) and (3) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (the SAFEMA), whereby the properties of H. K. Sarin, a detenu, under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (the COFEPOSA), were forfeited, including the property purchased by the appellants.2. The appellants were not parties before the competent authority, as according to them, they were not aware of the proceedings. They stated that each of them purchased 1/3rd of a part of the property by virtue of registered sale deeds dated March 9, 1998, executed by H. K. Sarin for a consideration of Rs. 2,76,000 and they stated that they have filed these appeals soon after they came to know of the pas...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 1999 (TRI)

Harshad P. Mehta and Others Vs. Competent Authority

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (1999)238ITR79ITAT

1. The appellants in these appeals are Harshad P. Mehta and his relatives, namely, his wife and children and the purchaser of property at serial No. (b) of the schedule, namely, Row House No. 18, at Ahmedabad. They question the order of the Competent Authority, Mumbai, dated April 13, 1998, made under sections 7 and 19 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange and Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (the SAFEMA for short), directing the forfeiture of the properties mentioned in the Schedule to the order.2. Harshad P. Mehta along with seven others was detained by order dated February 3, 1997, under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ("the COFEPOSA" for short), for indulging in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 ("the FERA" for short), by opening fictitious bank accounts and remitting large amounts in foreign exchange abroad through banks, by using forged import documents b...

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1999 (TRI)

Kasam HussaIn Thaim Vs. Competent Authority

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (1999)239ITR10ITAT

1. The properties of the appellant who was detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), were directed to be forfeited by the order of the Competent Authority, Ahmedabad, dated February 20, 1996, holding that the said properties are illegally acquired properties.2. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the principles of natural justice, namely, audi alterem partem were violated, inasmuch as the Competent Authority who gave the hearing to the appellant on June 30, 1995, did not pass the impugned order and the said order was passed by Shri A. K. Mehta who later took charge, by the order dated February 20, 1996. In short, the contention is that Shri Mehta who passed the impugned order did not give any personal hearing to the appellant.3. In support of this contention learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgments in Shree Rama Packaging v. Union of Ind...

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 1999 (TRI)

Smt. T. Ugam Bai Vs. Competent Authority

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (1999)239ITR4ITAT

1. This appeal is filed by T. Ugam Bai, widow of the late Tejraj, who was detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), against the order of the Competent Authority, Madras, dated September 29, 1995, directing the forfeiture of a house property and cash-on-hand, under section 7(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA).2. The appellant had earlier filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 3259 of 1999 challenging the order of detention dated December 19, 1974. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by an order dated March 1, 1999, observing "moreover, the order passed by the Competent Authority dated September 29, 1995, is only consequential to the Government order dated December 19, 1974.Learned senior counsel has not even placed any authority to show that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the issu...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1999 (TRI)

In Re; Damani Brothers

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (1999)238ITR36ITAT

1. The Chairman, Settlement Commission, exercising power under section 245BA(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, constituted a Special Bench vide his order dated September 18, 1998. The following issues were referred to the Special Bench : "1. Was the Special Bench of the Settlement Commission right in holding in the case of Om Metals and Minerals (P.) Ltd., In re [1992] 193 ITR 57 (ITSC) (New Delhi) that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer before the admission of the settlement application subsisted and recovery proceedings continued even after the admission of the said application, especially after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 443 It is equally evident that once an application made under section 245C is admitted for consideration (after giving notice to and considering the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax as provided by section 245D), the Commission shall have to withdraw the case relating to tha...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 1999 (TRI)

Khozem F. Kaukawala Vs. Competent Authority

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (1999)239ITR1ITAT

1. This appeal has come up before us for consideration as we directed notice to the appellant as well as to the Competent Authority at the stage of consideration of the stay petition. Shri Dharmendra K.Maltiwala, appeared for the appellant, and the Deputy Director for the Competent Authority, and we heard them at length on the merits of the appeal and the appeal itself is disposed of along with the stay petition.2. The appeal is filed against the order of the Competent Authority, Ahmedabad, dated August 19, 1980, under section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), whereby properties belonging to Hasmukh Tribhovandas Gandhi who was detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), were forfeited by order dated June 25, 1976. After issuing notice to the detenu under section 6(1) dated June 16, 1979, and after considering the contentions of the dete...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1999 (TRI)

Ansar Rahman and Others Vs. Competent Authority

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Reported in : (1999)239ITR12ITAT

1. These appeals are by Ansar Rahman, his daughter, wife and son, respectively, challenging the order of the Competent Authority, Calcutta, passed under section 68-1(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), whereby the properties of Ansar Rahman were forfeited.2. The appellant, Ansar Rahman, was convicted on July 30, 1988, for offences punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 15 years and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000 was imposed on him for possession of heroin. He was also convicted to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed for being in possession of charas. The Competent Authority issued a notice dated November 24, 1997, to the appellant under section 68H(1) of the Act, considering him as a person covered by section 68A(2)(a) of the Act to show cause as to why the properties mentioned in the annexure should not be forfeited as illegally acquired properties. In reply to the sai...

Tag this Judgment!


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