Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat pune Page 4 of about 565 results (0.197 seconds)

Mar 30 2007 (TRI)

Manisha Construction Vs. the Asstt. Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

1. In this appeal directed against the CIT(A)'s order dated 5-2-2004 in the matter of block assessment made Under Section 158BC(c) of the IT.Act, by the A.O for the block period 1-4-1990 to 9-11-2000 the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal. 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in passing the order confirming the addition of Rs. 18,80,870. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in adding buck the amount of Rs 18,80,870 being losses incurred by the appellant. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has (ailed to appreciate the provisions of Section 158BB(i)(c) of the Act regarding set off of losses during the block period in true and natural spirit. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing sol off of losses without giving proper reasoning for the same.2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid grounds of appeal may be set out as under. The assessee is a registered partnership firm consisting of Mr. Rajan H. Khinvasara and Mr. H. Khinvasara as partners sharing profits and losses equally. The firm...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2007 (TRI)

Shri Shetty G.D. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)112ITD103(Pune.)

1. ITA No 1180/PN/02 is filed by the assessee, directed against the CIT (A)'s order dt 23.1.2002 passed in the matter of an assessment made Under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the AO for the assessment year 95-96. ITA No. 714/PN/03 and C.O. No. 13/PN/06 relating thereto are connected to the matter of imposing penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) by the AO for the same assessment year 95-96. These two appeals and the cross objection were heard together and, as such, a common order is being passed, for the sake of convenience.2.1. We shall first take ITA No 1180/PN/02 filed by the assessee arising from the CIT (A)'s order passed in the matter of an assessment made Under Section 143(3) of the Act by the AO. The solitary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is as under: 1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the facts and submissions placed before him in relation la the claim of exemption Under Section 54F of the IT Act, 1961.2.2. The relevant facts giving rise...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2007 (TRI)

thermax Babcock and Wilcox Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of It, Spl.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)304ITR130(Pune.)

1. The assessee is in appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dt 8.1.2001 in the matter of an assessment made Under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 97-98. 1. The Id CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of expenditure on account of land lease charges Rs. 46. 163/- rejecting the contention of the appellant that the expenditure in question was of revenue nature.2.2. In the course of hearing of this appeal, the Id counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the identical issue based on similar facts has been decided by the ITAT 'A' Bench, Pune against the assessee vide its order dt 17.3.2006 in assessee's own case in ITA No.1168/PN/97 for the assessment year 97-98, in respect thereof para 3 of the Tribunal's order was referred to. The said para 3 of the Tribunal's order reads as under: 3. The T' ground in appeal No. 784/PN/00 is that the Id CIT (A) erred in disallowing the proportionate land lease charge of Rs. 46.163...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2007 (TRI)

Shri Lunawat Jayant Maniklal Vs. Dy. C.i.T.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)112ITD268(Pune.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of CIT(A)- II, Pune dated 2^nd September 2005. Several grounds have been raised, however, the assessee has challenged; at the outset, the validity of the impugned assessment order, passed Under Section 158 BD read with Section 143(3) dated 31.3.2005 for the block period of A.Y.1995-96 to 2000-01 by raising the following ground: 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting assessee's contention that the asst. order Under Section 158BC r.w.s. 158BD is null and void as it has been passed by; the A.O without satisfying the basic conditions of Section 158BD. 1.1] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 158BD can be invoked only if the A.O is satisfied that the undisclosed income belonged to the appellant. In this case, however, the proceedings were initiated on receiving the direction from the CIT(A) whereas originally, on examining the facts of the case, the learned A.O. had accepted the content...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2007 (TRI)

Ador Technologies Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Pune.)24

1. These two appeals by the assessee, directed against the orders of CIT(A) dt. 27th Feb., 2006 for asst. yrs. 2001-02 and 2002-03 were heard together and therefore these are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee company was engaged in the business of project engineering and of manufacturing electromechanical assemblies. The return for asst. yr. 2001-02 was filed on 25th Oct., 2001 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,11,15,130. In the assessment order, passed by the AO on 30th March, 2001, the total income was assessed at Rs. 1,20,15,090 as under:Net business loss as per return (-)11,115,126Add:3. Market survey expenses- 4,62,000amortized9. Sales promotion expenses 10,000 2,31,30,218 ---------------- Total income 1,20,15,092 ---------------- 3. The CIT(A) allowed part relief and his order has been challenged by the assessee in the present appeal. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions of law, it be held that the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2007 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Vijaya V. Kavekar L/H of Late

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Pune.)602

1. These two appeals by the Department directed against the order of CIT(A) dt. 29th March, 2001 for asst. yrs. 1988-89 and 1989-90 were heard together and, therefore, these are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. 1, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act for asst. yrs. 1988-89 and 1989-90. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) while annulling the assessment orders passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, erred in holding that the CIT has set aside the assessment under Section 263 as the additional income offered by the assessee in her petition dt. 22nd Jan., 1990 had not been taken into consideration in the assessment orders passed by the AO under Section 143(1) dt. 22nd Feb., 1990. As the additional income offered by the assessee for the relevant assessment years were of Rs. 5,0...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2007 (TRI)

S.J. Agarwal and Co. Vs. the I.T.O.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)114ITD27(Pune.)

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 16-7-2004 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of penalty imposed Under Section 271B of the Act for the A.Y. 2001-02 and 2002-03.2. In these two appeals, the assessee has challenged the CIT(A)'s order in confirming the penalty levied by the A.O Under Section 271B for not getting the books of accounts audited as required Under Section 44AB of the Act.3. For the assessment year 2001-02 the return of. income showing total income at Rs. 2,13,069 was filed by the assessee on 31-3-2003. From the return of income it was noticed that the assessee's turnover was Rs. 1,21,88,750. Similarly, the turnover for the A.Y. 2002-03 was Rs. 2,82,94,674. As the turnover of the assessee exceeded Rs. 40.00 lakhs, the A.O has taken a view that the assessee was under an obligation to get its accounts audited by an Accountant before the specified date and furnish the audit report by that date as required Under Section 44AB of t...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2007 (TRI)

Alfa Laval India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)298ITR333(Pune.)

1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the CIT (Appeals)-III, Pune, passed on 17.03.2003. The corresponding assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle-8, Pune, on 10.07.2002, under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The other appeals in this case were sought to be consolidated on 10.8.2006 by obtaining the order of the Senior Member. However, the learned Counsel for the assessee made a statement at the Bar that he had informed the Senior Member that this appeal may be heard independent of the other appeals.Therefore, we proceed to decide this appeal.2. Ground No. 1 is against the findings of the learned CIT (Appeals) that the assessee was not entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 4.25 lakh in computing the income, being a contribution made to Alfa Laval Education Trust, in view of the provisions contained in Section 40A(9) of the Act. It was mentioned that he erred in not following the de...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2007 (TRI)

Ajit Chintaman Karve Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Pune.)480

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Pune, dt. 28th Nov., 2002. Grounds have been concised and learned Authorised Representative has stated that the only issue is in respect of an addition of Rs. 18,00,000 which was alleged to be a declaration made by the assessee during the course of a survey action and in this regard, he has mainly pressed ground No. 1 and ground No. 4 of the concised grounds reproduced below: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in mechanically confirming the addition of Rs. 18 lacs made by the learned AO to the returned income of the appellant solely on the basis of declaration made by the appellant at the time of survey action carried on 18th March, 1998, when the alleged declaration was retracted by the appellant for valid, cogent and legal reasons by filing a revised return of income. 4. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that neither the survey pa...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2007 (TRI)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Sunil M. Kankariya

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)112ITD170(Pune.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue arising out of the order of CIT(A), Nasik dated 16.12.2002. 6.6.2003. Substantial grounds raised by the revenue are reproduced below: 1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in in allowing set off of depreciation carry forward of Rs. 4,22,000/- stating that the provisions of Section 72 not effected by what Section 44 AE provides. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the fact that the depreciation carry forward having been provided in Section 32(2) in different manner and Section 72 deals with losses other than losses due to depreciation. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. 59 ITR 555 where it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is wrong to assume that Section 72 also deals with the carry forward of dep...

Tag this Judgment!


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