Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat pune Page 5 of about 565 results (0.131 seconds)

Jan 17 2007 (TRI)

Ajit Chintaman Karve Vs. I.T.O.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Pune dated 28.112002. Grounds have been concised and Learned iA.R. 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 C.I.T.(A) has erred in mechanically confirming the addition of Rs. 18.00 lacs made by the learned Assessing Officer 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of declaration made by the appellant at the time of survey action carried on 18/03/1998 when the alleged declaration was retracted by the appellant for valid cogent and legal reasons by filing a revised return of income. 4.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 C.I.T.(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that neither the survey party nor...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 29 2006 (TRI)

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Pune.)437

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 31st Dec, 1999 for asst. yr. 1995-96.2. This ground relates to the disallowance of Rs. 1,19,99,224 in respect of claim for bad debts, which was upheld by the CIT(A). During the hearing of the appeal, Shri K.R. Kamdar, the learned Authorised Representative did not press this ground. The ground No. 1 is accordingly rejected.3. This ground relates to disallowance of Rs. 24,960 representing fines and penalties which was confirmed by the CIT(A).4. We have considered the rival submissions in the light, of material on record and the precedents cited. During the relevant year the assessee company had to pay penalties and fines as under:1. Paid to sales-tax authorities against penalty imposed by them under Section 36(4A) 1002. Paid to Consumer Forum against the notice issued by Kakinada Consumer Redressal Forum 3,0503. Paid to Dy. Inspector of Registration & Dy. Controller of Stamps for non-compliance of stamping t...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 29 2006 (TRI)

Sudarshan Chemical Industries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)110ITD171(Pune.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dt. 19th Sept., 2003 for asst. yr. 2000-01. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the bona fide change in the system of valuation of closing stock made and which has support of accounting standards consistently adhered to subsequently which did not inflict any loss to the Revenue should have been unreservedly accepted by the AO and therefore, addition of Rs. 26,63,104 resulting into net addition of Rs. 4,20,596 considering the adjustment is unjustified and it be deleted. 2. He failed to appreciate that on the basis of telescopic study it transpires that this addition of Rs. 26,63,104 has in fact a double effect and it be considered accordingly. 3. He failed to appreciate that the valuation of closing stock cannot be a source of income and, therefore, the addition on this count is required to be deleted and it be deleted accordingly.2. The AO has noted in para 3 of his order that the assessee was valuing its ...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2006 (TRI)

thermax Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)110ITD591(Pune.)

1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee arising out of a combined order of CWT - III, Pune for A.Y. 1999-2000 and 2001-02 dated 24.2.2005. For both the years, the issue raised in the grounds of appeal are identical, hence these appeals are heard together and hereby decided by this common order. Grounds raised are reproduced below: 1. The learned CWT (Appeals) erred in confirming rejection of appellant's claim for deduction as debt owed for an amount of Rs. 1,09,15,787/-(for A.Y. 2002-02 Rs. 1,08,66,637) in relation to the motorcars, the value of which was exigible to Wealth tax. 2. The learned CWT (Appeals) further erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer of bringing to tax the written down value of the motorcars as per books of accounts of the Appellant as opposed to the Appellant's contentions that their written down value as per Income-tax records ought to be considered.2. Apropos ground No. 1, the facts were discussed by WTO on page 3 of the assessment ...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2006 (TRI)

income Tax Officer Vs. Balasaheb B. Barbale

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)107TTJ(Pune.)779

1. This appeal by the Department and the cross-objection by the assessee directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 5th Nov., 2003, were heard together and therefore these are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 1. The CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the reopening of assessment and assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law and thus he erred in annulling order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 passed by the AO on 8th March, 2002. 2. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in the assessment order under appeal the issue involved was unexplained investment in construction of hotel and not taxability of capital gains, which could have necessitated reference to Valuation Officer under Section 55A of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) also failed to take note of the fact that in the letter dt. 22nd Sept., 1999 addressed to Valuation Officer, the AO had requested DVO to estimate the cost of construction without actually mentioning Section 55A ...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2006 (TRI)

Praj Industries Ltd. Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax,

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2008)301ITR247(Pune.)

1. The assessee is in appeal against the CIT (A)'s order dt 23.6.2001 confirming the penalty amounting to Rs 19,05,582/- imposed by the AO Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 94-95. 1. The ld C1T (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding penalty of Rs 19,05,582/- Under Section 271(1)(c), on alleged furnishing of wrong particulars of income and concealment of income regarding depreciation and: related expenses on assets leased to M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. 2. The ld CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in coming to a conclusion that the assessee has failed to state the relevant facts at time of original assessment without properly appreciating the facts of the case and arguments advanced by the assessee in this regard. 3. The ld CIT(A) Failed to appreciate that the assessee all along acted under a bona fide belief in the mailer. He further failed to appreciate that the penalty proceedings are separate than the regular assessment proceedings. The reasons assigned b...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2006 (TRI)

Super Meter Mfg. Co. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Pune.)464

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 15th Jan., 2002 for asst. yr. 1998-99. The learned Hon'ble CIT(A)-I, Pune, has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,00,000 to its total income as disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000 for payment made to Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., as life membership fees on the ground that the said life membership fees is not business expenditure and is in the nature of personal expenditure and alternatively also treated as capital expenditure.2. The assessee firm had taken a membership of the Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (RWITC) in the name of two partners--Shri. Rajesh R.Chinta and Shri Vijay R. Chinta. The AO treated it as capital expenditure and his action was upheld by the CIT(A).3. Shri S.P. Joshi, the learned Authorised Representative, pointed out that this issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal Pune, in the case of Chindhy's Interiors in ITA No.619/Pune/2002 for asst. yr. 199...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2006 (TRI)

Shri Satvinder Singh Kalra and Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)109ITD241(Pune.)

1. In these eight appeals, four appeals each filed by two different assessees, pertaining to the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01.2001-02 and 2002-03, a common and identical issue is involved as to whether the following properties fall within the definition of ''assets" defined Under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and are thus liable to wealth-tax: New Budhwar Peth. Pune 411002 Rs. 5,92.493/-b. Office at 24 East Street, Yogesh Hlouse. Rs. 93,21,358/- Pune 411 001 Pune 411001 Rs. 1,30,16.044/-d. 1/2 share of office at ground floor.2. The grounds of appeal taken by both the assessees in the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-03 are mostiy identical and related to the same issue mentioned above only with a little variation as to the amount of the value of the property. Therefore, the ground of appeal taken in assessment year 1999-2000 would throw light as to the issue involved in these appeals. Therefore, grounds taken in assessment year 1999-2000 in one of the assessee's c...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2006 (TRI)

The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Vijaykumar Rameshchand and

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)108ITD626(Pune.)

1. This is an appeal filed by revenue arising out of the order of CIT(A)-II, Aurangabad dated 22.11.2002 for the A.Y. 1999-2000. Though revenue has raised six grounds in this appeal, the main issue that emerges from these grounds is whether employee of the assessee is an agent or not as in this case the A.O has held that the appellant had actually made cash payments to various parties who had themselves deposited the same in their respective accounts and provided with original pay slips so that the same could be produced before the tax authorities, which was held as violative of Section 40A(3) of I.T. Act.The A.O. has disallowed 20% of such expenses, which is being challenged in the appeal. Grounds taken by revenue read as under: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,78,735/-. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of payments of Rs. 38,93,68...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 2006 (TRI)

Haresh V. Milani Vs. Jt. Commissioner of It

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune

Reported in : (2007)111TTJ(Pune.)310

1. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dt 16.12.2002 passed by the CIT (A) in the matter of an assessment made Under Section 143(3)/263 of the Act for the assessment year 95-96. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the land situated at village Takve Budruk, Tal Maval Dist Pune sold during the year as non agricultural land and confirming the order of the ld AO without appreciating the facts. It is prayed that the addition of capital gain Rs. 15,12,425/- by treating the land under question as non agricultural land be deleted.3. The facts of the case emerging from the orders of the authorities below and the materials on record may be summarized as under.The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under consideration, the original assessment was completed Under Section 143(3) on 28.3.96 on a total income of Rs. 6,94,140/-. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year u...

Tag this Judgment!


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