Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat pune Page 10 of about 565 results (0.157 seconds)

Aug 31 2005 (TRI)

i.D.O.R.i. (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)112ITD149(Pune.)

1. These two appeals by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A) Kolhapur, dt. 24th July, 1998 for asst. yr. 1992-93 and dt. 3rd Sept., 1998 for asst. yr. 1994-95 were heard together and therefore, these are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The only issue involved in these appeals is about the disallowances of Rs. 5,36,234 and Rs. 3,33,771 made by the AO in asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively and confirmed by the CIT(A).3. The assessee company was deriving income from a diagnostic centre having facilities of CT scan, ultrasound and X-ray. The assessee made a claim for deduction of Rs. 5,36,254 on account of professional charges paid to three directors who were also directors of the assessee company as under:Dr. S.M. Karnawat (MD) 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1991 78,846.20Dr. C.P. Mehta -do- 78,846.20Dr. K.B. Patankar -do- 78,846.20 ___________Dr. S.M. Karnawat 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1992 99,898.28Dr. C.P. Mehta -do- 99,898.28Dr. K.B. Patankar -do-...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2005 (TRI)

Om Engineers and Builders Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)109ITD235(Pune.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-n, Pune, dt. 14th Dec., 2004 for asst. yr. 2001-02. The only issue involved in this appeal is about the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IB.2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development and construction of housing projects. The assessee-firm undertook a housing project at Kothrud under the name of Bhaktiyog Co-operative Housing Society ('Bhaktiyog society' for short). In the return for asst. yr. 2001-02 filed on 31st Oct., 2001 the total income was shown at Rs. NIL after claiming deduction under Section 80-IB(10) in respect of the entire net profit of Rs. 81,83,630. The AO disallowed this claim and his order was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in the present appeal.3. Shri S.K. Tyagi, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Bhaktiyog society had purchased a piece of land admeasuring 4757 sq. mtrs, that on...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2005 (TRI)

Finolex Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Pune.)463

1. All these appeals relate to the same group of assessee and since they also involve some common issues, were heard together and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.2. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act on 10th Feb., 1995. In the grounds of appeal, including the concise ground of appeal filed on 2nd June, 2005, the assessee has challenged both the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 as well as merits of the decision of the CIT. We may briefly notice the facts leading up to the appeal.3. The assessment year is 1991-92, for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1991. The assessee is a company incorporated in 1981 and engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes. It filed a return of income on 31st Dec, 1991 declaring a loss. While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the AO noted that the assessee had incurred the following expenditure ...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2005 (TRI)

Deval Utensils Factory Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Pune.)501

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of CIT(A), dt. 26th Aug., 1999. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative. Mr. K.A. Sathe has informed that the grounds raised as per appeal memo are argumentative, however, revolve around the main issue as raised in ground No. 1. which is reproduced below : "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 92,948 out of the interest on capital paid to the partners on the ground that the same was disallowable under the provisions of Section 40(b) of the IT Act. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts of the case as also the correct legal position and, therefore, it may kindly be held that the entire interest paid to the partners of Rs. 6,59,492 as authorized by the partnership deed may kindly be held to be allowable to the assessee in computing the income." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a registered firm engaged in the business of manufacturing ...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2005 (TRI)

income-tax Officer (Tds) Vs. Shri Bhogavati Sah. Sakhar

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2006)101ITD302(Pune.)

1. All these appeals have been filed by the revenue arising out of a common order of CIT(A), Kolhapur, dated 26-10-1998 pertaining to the financial years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and the Cross Objections have been filed by the assessee in support of the view taken by the first appellate authority. Grounds raised by the revenue are identical, hence all these appeals have been consolidated, heard together and hereby decided as follows.2. Initially, the grounds raised by the revenue were argumentative, running into several pages, hence directed to concise the grounds and now these appeals are hereby decided as per the concise grounds.3. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raises the identical issue, hence combined and dealt with as follows: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in entertaining the assessee's appeal on the face of the fact that Section 206C does not figure in the list of appeals as indicated in Section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the f...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2005 (TRI)

Shivratan R. Tapadia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Pune.)483

1. The assessee is in appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, dt. 14th June, 1995, confirming the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,51,940 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO for the asst. yr, 1987-88.2. By filing this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the order of penalty passed under Section 271(1)(c) by contending that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was liable to be imposed on the assessee inasmuch as additional income was disclosed by the assessee voluntarily and with a view to buy peace so that no penalty and interest would be charged by the Department.3. The material facts relating to the issue involved in this appeal are as under. In this case the assessee filed originally return of income declaring total income at Rs. 23,810 on 23rd Feb., 1988. The return of income was filed in response to notice issued under Section 139(2) of the Act. The assessment was then completed under Section 143(1) on 5th Jan., 1989, on an income of Rs. ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 2005 (TRI)

Technomics Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2006)100ITD324(Pune.)

1. These two cross appeals arise out of the order of CIT (A) -I, Pune, passed on 25-1-1999. The corresponding assessment order was made by the ACIT, Cir. 2(2), Pune (hereinafter called 'the AO'), on 22-3-1997. The assessee had taken nine grounds of appeal.1.2 Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed against the findings of the learned CIT (A) regarding taxation of a sum of Rs. 1,84,517 under Section 41(1) in respect of technical know-how. In this connection, it is, inter alia, mentioned that the provisions of Section 41(1) are not applicable. It is further mentioned that the impugned amount is also not taxable under the head "Capital gains" because there is cost of acquisition of this asset. Ground No. 4 is directed against the finding of the learned CIT (A) that the assessee is liable to be taxed in the status of Body of Individuals (BOI). Ground No. 5 is directed against the initiation of proceedings under Section 147. However, but this ground was not pressed in the course of hearing bef...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 2005 (TRI)

Smt. Krishnabai Tingre Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2006)101ITD317(Pune.)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee arising out of the order of learned CIT(A)-in, Pune, dated 15-4-1998 and several grounds have been raised which arc argumentative and stated to be either alternative grounds or consequential in nature. Before us, the learned AR Mr. N.C.Khandelwal has stressed upon ground No. 1 which reads as follows: On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions of law, it be held that the value of the property as on 1-4-1981 should have been taken at Rs. 4,61,000 as is adopted by the appellant. It may further be held that the reference made by the Assessing Officer is erroneous on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case is contrary to the scheme of the Act and is beyond his jurisdiction. It may further be held that Assessing Officer should have accepted the value adopted by the appellant and should have disregarded the value ascertained by the valuation officer as per the provisions of the Act and as per the scheme of the Act. Just...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 2005 (TRI)

Smruthi Organics Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2006)101ITD205(Pune.)

1. I.T.A Nos. 1268 to 1270/ PN/04 arise out of three orders of CIT(A)-III, Pune, passed on 7-6-2004. The corresponding orders of assessment were passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle I, Solapur, on 30-1-2004 under the provisions of Section 143(3), read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee has taken identical grounds of appeal in all these three appeals. The appeals were also argued in a consolidated manner. Therefore, a consolidated order is passed. We may refer to the grounds of appeal taken up in the appeal filed for assessment year 1998-99.2. The assessee has taken two grounds of appeal. First ground of appeal is against finding of the Id. CIT(A) that the assessments were validly re-opened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The second ground of appeal is against the finding of the Id. CIT(A) that deduction under Explanation (viii) below Section 115JA of the Act has to be computed in accordance with provision of Section 80HHC and not on the...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 2005 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Deccan Mechanical and Chemical

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2006)102ITD171(Pune.)

1. These appeals of the revenue involve common grounds and, therefore, they were argued in a consolidated manner. Consequently, a consolidated order is passed. For this purpose, we shall discuss the facts and the grounds of appeal for assessment year 1991-92 by way of illustration.Four grounds of appeal had been taken up for the aforesaid year. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 challenge the finding of the learned CIT(A), in which addition of Rs. 74,42,520, made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment, was deleted. It is inter alia, mentioned that the impugned amount, representing retention money, was income, which accrued to the assessee in the relevant previous year in view of mercantile method of accounting followed by it, and that liability to pay tax arises the moment income accrues to the assessee even if its actual receipt is postponed. Therefore, in ground No. 3, it was urged that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be vacated. Ground No. 4 is residuary in nature.2. The issue has been de...

Tag this Judgment!


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