Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat pune Page 3 of about 565 results (0.318 seconds)

Jul 31 2007 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Finolex Cables Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Pune.)785

v This appeal by the Department is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 23rd Dec.,1996 for asst. yr. 1993 94.2. The assessee, a public limited company, was engaged in the business of manufacturing electric and telephone cables. It had two units an old unit at Pimpri and a new unit at Urse. In respect of the Urse unit the assessee was claiming deduction under Section 80-1. The return for asst. yr. 1993 94 was filed on 31st Dec., 1993 showing total income of Rs. 21,60,82,458. In the assessment order passed by the AO on 4th March, 1996, the total income was assessed at Rs. 34,92,81,571.2.1 The CIT(A) allowed part relief and his order was challenged by the assessee as well as by the Department. The appeal filed by the "assessee was decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 299/Pn/1997 on 26th June, 2006. The present appeal is the one filed by the Department. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,90,303 which rep...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 2007 (TRI)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Sheth and Sura Engg. P. Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)110ITD39(Pune.)

1. On account of difference between the learned Members of Pune Bench, the following question has been referred to me Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery and furniture and fixtures.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of laying pipe lines. A search was carried on the premises of the assessee Under Section 132 on 18.12.92. During the course of search, the assessee agreed to surrender Rs. 30 lakh for the period relevant to the AY 1993-94 as under: 3. The assessee, in the return for AY 1993-94, disclosed the above amount as income and also claimed depreciation on the value of plant, machinery, furniture and fixture declared Under Section 132(4). In other words, he claimed depreciation on Rs. 7 lakh and Rs. 3 lakh respectively. The Assessing Officer, in the course of assessment proceedings, asked the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 2007 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Patni Computer Systems Limited

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

1. This is an appeal filed by the Assessing Officer and is directed against the order dated 14th December 2004 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2001-02.2. The grounds of appeal, as set out in the memorandum of appeal, are as follows: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the losses of assessee's Japan Branch Office amounting to Rs 53,96,061. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred In not considering the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with Japan. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the specific provisions of Section 90 in respect of the cases where the Government of India has entered into DTAA with another country.In substance, therefore, solitary grievance of the Assessing Officer is that ought to have held that loss of Rs 53...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 2007 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Patni Computers Systems Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)301ITR60(Pune.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the AO and is directed against the order dt. 14th Dec., 2004 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The grounds of appeal, as set out in the memorandum of appeal, are as follows: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the losses of assessee's Japan branch office amounting to Rs 53,96,061. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with Japan. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the specific provisions of Section 90 in respect of the cases where the Government of India has entered into DTAA with another country.In substance, therefore, solitary grievance of the AO is that the CIT(A) ought to have held that loss of Rs. 53,96,061 incurred by Japan office of t...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 01 2007 (TRI)

Mayfair Builders and Developers Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Pune.)550

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dt. 31st Aug., 2004 for the block period ending 25th June, 1998. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding the appeal as non-maintainable on the ground that the order of the learned AO had merged with the order of CIT passed under Section 264. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed an appeal before making on application under Section 264, which appeal was not admitted for non-payment of taxes under Section 249(4)(a). In view of this fact and in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manmala Exhibitors v. M.C. Joshi CIT , the order of CIT-II passed under Section 264 is without jurisdiction and therefore is bad in law ab initio. 2. The learned CIT(A) further erred in holding that the order of CIT passed under Section 264 was an order on merits as against the fact that the application-under Section 264 was not admitted on the ground of limitation. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not...

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2007 (TRI)

A.C.i.T. and D.C.i.T. Vs. Shri Raghunath B. Taware

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)302ITR136(Pune.)

1. All these three appeals have been filed by the revenue for A.Y 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1994-95.2. the issues involved in all these appeals are common and identical, hence these appeals were consolidated and heard together.3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in these three assessment years are similarly worded, raising identical and common issue. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CTI(A) erred in treating tote receipts as income from business to be charged to tax Under Section 28 when in fact the A.O. has rightly taxed under the had 'ncome from other sources' in view of specific provisions of Section 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961, 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the income received by the assessee from tote receipts is in fact winnings from horse race and is liable to be taxed (a) 40% as provided under Section 115BB of the I.T. Ac...

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2007 (TRI)

Deepesh Ramanlal Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Pune.)404

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the decision dt. 14th Dec, 2005 of the CIT (A) in the matter of rectification by the AO under Section 154 r/w Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.2. Grievance of the assessee is that the CIT (A) ought to have held that the impugned rectification order passed by the AO is barred by limitation. The memorandum of appeal also sets out certain other grievances as well but learned Counsel for the assessee states at the bar that he does not wish to press those grievances. We must, therefore, confine ourselves to the issue regarding the order being barred by limitation of time.3. The material facts are like this. On 20th July, 2005, the assessee was imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,82,560 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty order stated that the penalty was for the asst. yr.1998-99. On 6th Sept., 2005, however, the AO issued a rectification order under Section 154 r/w Section 271(1)(c) stating that the assessment year ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2007 (TRI)

ito Vs. Rins B. Parwani

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue and is directed against the order dated 20th July, 2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2001-02.2. The assessing officer has raised six grounds of appeal Lut, in effect, the solitary grievance of the assessing officer is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 11,00,000 received by the assessee was on account of sale of a long-term capital asset, and that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held that the said receipt is in the nature of mesne profits liable to be taxed under the head 'Income from other sources' as was the stand of the assessing officer.3. Briefly, the relevant material facts. In the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has claimed long-term capital gains on account of sale of bungalow at 384/1, Jai Co-operative Society, Bhawani Peth, P...

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2007 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Rina B. Parwani

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Pune.)460

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and is directed against the order dt. 20th July, 2004 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr.2001-02.2. The AO has raised six grounds of appeal but, in effect, the solitary grievance of the AO is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 11,00,000 received by the assessee was on account of sale of a long-term capital asset, and that the CIT(A) ought to have held that the said receipt is in the nature of mesne profits liable to be taxed under the head 'Income from other sources' as was the stand of the AO.3. Briefly, the relevant material facts. In the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed long-term capital gains on account of sale of bungalow at 384/1, Jai Co-operative Society, Bhawani Peth, Pune. This property was sold by the assessee by way of agreement dt. 8th July, 2000 to one Abdul K.Jaffery. The assessee had a...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2007 (TRI)

Konkani Bharat Dairy Farm (Aop) Vs. Acit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)113ITD72(Pune.)

1. These nine appeals filed by the assessee, directed against the orders of the CIT(A) dated 15.03.2004 for A.Y 1993-94 to 2000-01 and dated 31.03.2005 for A.Y 2001-02, involving an identical issue, were heard together and therefore these are being disposed off by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first and the main issue involved in these appeals relates to the decision of A 0 and the CIT(A) holding that the four family members -father and his three sons, formed an 'association of persons' (AOP) for carrying on their dairy business.3. The eight appeals in ITA No. 1173 to 1180/PN/04 for A.Y 1993-94 to 2000-01, were disposed off by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dated 14.10.2005, and the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with directions given in paragraph 4 of its order as under: We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions. Prima-facie, notice Under Section 143(2) has not been issued within the statutory period prescribed in pro...

Tag this Judgment!


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