Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: form 3cd :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
 
 
« ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata Benches Kolkata Constitution of Kolkata Benches for 05/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Benches ahmedabad S/shri R. P. Tolani, Jm & Manish Borad, Am Causelist For Bench 'A' Date : 05/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi Benches New Delhi The Revised Constitution of Delhi Benches from 28/11/2016 To 01/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches Mumbai Statement showing The List of Special Bench Cases Pending for 2016 as on 16/11/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches Mumbai list of order ready for pronouncement on 30/11/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches Chennaj Revised Constitution For The Week From O5/1212016 To O8/12120-16
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: Vice President’s Secretariat: Hyderabad Constitution Of Hyderabad Benches
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench List Of Division Bench Cases Posted Before Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon'ble Judicial Member & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'ble Accountant Member During The Period From 21.11.2016 To 09.12.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai. List Of Division Bench Cases Posted For Hearing From 25.11.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad. List Of Division Bench Cases Posted For Hearing From 28.11.2016 To 01.12.2016 Before ‘a’ Bench
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench List Of Division Bench Cases Posted Before Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon'ble Judicial Member & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'ble Accountant Member During The Period From 21.11.2016 To 09.12.2016

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 16.10.2013
November, 01st 2013
                         INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
            STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 16.10.2013


Sr       Appeal No.         Name of the          Bench               Points involved             To whom        REMARKS
No                           Assesses                                                            assigned

     MUMBAI BENCH
1.   ITA Nos. 525 to      Mrs. Sumanlata   S/Shri.            1. "Whether, non-issuance of Zonal Vice-        Fixed on
     530/Mum/2008,        Bansal, Mumbai   1. R.S.Padvekar,   the notice as provided in Sub.- President(MZ)   21.11.2013
     A.Ys.1999-2000 to                        J.M.            sec.(2) to Section 143 of the I.T.
     2004-05                               2.B.Ramakotaiah,   Act in the case of assessment
                                             A.M.             framed       u/sec.153A,        in
                                                              consequence of search under
                                                              sec. 132, is merely an
                                                              irregularity and the same is
                                                              curable?"
                                                              2. "Whether ,on the facts of the
                                                              case, failure on the part of the
                                                              Assessessing Officer (A.O.) to
                                                              issue notice to the assessee as
                                                              per provisions of Sub-sec.(2) to
                                                              Section 143 shall have the
                                                              effect of rendering the entire
                                                              assessment framed u/sec. 153A
                                                              of the Act as null and void?"

2.   ITA 5229/M/2004      M/s. Standard    S/Shri.            "Whether on the facts and Shri. R.S. Syal,      After the
     & 5303/M/2004        Chartered Bank   1.R.S.Padvekar,    circumstances of the case A.M.                  Disposal of MA
     A.Y. 1996-97                            J.M.             interest      income        of
                                           2.Rajendra         Rs.73,92,16,611/-
                                             Singh, A.M.      (Rs.39,23,71,781+Rs.34,68,44,
                                                              830) is asseable to tax in the
                                                              year under consideration?"
                                                                                                                               1
3.   MA No.         M/s Amzel Ltd.,   S/Shri          1. Whether on the facts and Shri R.S. Syal,   Fixed on
     583/Mum/2012   Mumbai            1.D.Manmohan,   circumstances discussed by the A.M.           4.11.2013 &
                                      (VP).           Tribunal in the appellate order,              5.11.2013
                                      2. Rajendra     can it be said that the factual
                                      Singh,AM.       errors pointed out by the
                                                      assessee in the miscellaneous
                                                      application will have any
                                                      impact on the decision taken by
                                                      the Tribunal or that the decision
                                                      of the Tribunal would have
                                                      been different if the correct
                                                      facts had been considered.

                                                      2. Whether considering the
                                                      fact that there is difference of
                                                      opinion between the two
                                                      Members as to whether the
                                                      factual errors will have any
                                                      impact on the decision of the
                                                      Tribunal or not, can the order be
                                                      recalled for fresh adjudication
                                                      under section 254(2) under
                                                      which, no debatable issues can
                                                      be considered."

                                                      3. Whether on the facts and in
                                                      the circumstances of the case,
                                                      the order of the Tribunal dated
                                                      30.05.2013 deserves to be
                                                      recalled or will it amount to
                                                      review of the order?"







                                                                                                                  2
     PUNE BENCHES
1.   ITA             No. M/s Audyogik     S/Shri.             1.     "In    the    facts    and Zonal Vice- Adjourned sine
     1712/PN/2007,       Shikshan Mandal, 1. Mukul Shrawat,   circumstances of the case, President(MZ)      die
     for A.Y. 2004-05.   Pune,            J.M.                whether the property of the trust
                                          2.D. Karunakara     i.e. car, be held `made
                                          Rao, A.M.           available' for the use of the
                                                              trustee, specified person u/s
                                                              13(3) of the Income Tax Act
                                                              1961?"
                                                              2.     "In    the    facts    and
                                                              circumstances of the case,
                                                              whether the expression `made
                                                              available for the use of' trustee
                                                              ipso facto be understood to have
                                                              been deemed used or applied
                                                              for the benefit of the said
                                                              trustee, with or without the
                                                              actual use or application of the
                                                              property of the trust i.e. car for
                                                              personal benefit of the trustee in
                                                              view of section 13(2) of the
                                                              Income Tax Act 1961?"
                                                              3.       "In the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case,
                                                              whether the case of the assessee
                                                              falls within the ambit of the
                                                              provisions of clause (b) of
                                                              section 13(2) of the Income tax
                                                              Act 1961?"
                                                              4. "If the answers to above
                                                              questions at sr. No. (1) to (3)
                                                              are affirmative, whether the
                                                              denial of benefits of section 11
                                                              be restricted to such income of
                                                              the trust used or applied directly
                                                              or indirectly for the benefits of trustee
                                                              or, in alternative, the total income of
                                                              the trust is not entitled for the benefits
                                                              of section 11 of the Act.
                                                                                                                             3
      DELHI
     BENCHES
1.   IT(SS)A        No. Mr. Vijay Bansal,   S/Shri           1. "Whether the addition on Hon'ble         Vice-
     438/Del/2005    & Haryana.             1. Hari Om       account      of     undisclosed President (BZ)
     IT(SS)A.22/Del/06                         Maratha,JM.   investment on the investment
                                            2.T.S.Kapoor,    on the education of daughter of
                                            AM.              the assessee, in the block
                                                             period, found to have been
                                                             made has been correctly
                                                             sustained or it deserves to be
                                                             deleted in the given facts and
                                                             the circumstances of the case?

                                                             2. Whether an addition made
                                                             and sustained on account of
                                                             undisclosed investment found in
                                                             the construction of the property
                                                             deserves to be deleted or
                                                             sustained in the given facts and
                                                             circumstances of the case?

                                                             3. Whether any addition can
                                                             be made in the business income
                                                             of the assessee on the basis of
                                                             evidence gathered behind the
                                                             back of the assessee by opening
                                                             a floppy found and seized
                                                             during the search conducted u/s
                                                             132(1) of the Act or not?

                                                             4.    Whether the cash found
                                                             during search from a brief-case
                                                             stands explained, in the given
                                                             facts and circumstances of the
                                                             case or not?




                                                                                                                 4
2.   IT(SS)No. 26    & M/s Haryana         S/Shri               "Whether on the facts and Shri U.B.S. Bedi,
     33/Del/2010       Paneer Bhandar,     1.B.R.Jain,A.M.      circumstances of this case, the J.M.
                       Delhi.              2.Rajpal             requisites as envisaged by
                                           Yadav,J.M.           Section 158 BD of the IT Act
                                                                have not been satisfied before
                                                                issuing notice under section
                                                                158BD of the Act consequently
                                                                requiring quashing of such
                                                                notice?"
     LUCKNOW
     BENCHES
1.   ITA No.             Ms Rajya Krishi   S/Shri               1."Whether" the CIT(A) has              Shri.Barathvja     Fixed on
     141,142,143 &       Utpadan mandi     1. I.S.Verma,J.M.    jurisdiction to decide the              Sankar,Vice        22.11.2013
     144/LKW/2009        Parishad,         2. N.K.Saini, A.M.   assessee's petition for stay or         President (as per
     C.O.No.06 to        Lucknow                                recovery of demand during the           dt.03.04.2013) of
     09/LKW/2009                                                pendency of assessee's appeal           the        Hon'ble
     A.Y.2001-02,2002-                                          furnished under section 246A of         President)
     03,2003-                                                   the Act?"
     04 &2006-07                                                2. "If the CIT(A) has jurisdiction
                                                                to decide the assessee's petition for
                                                                stay of recovery of demend , than
                                                                under which provisions of law the
                                                                CIT(A) will pass such an order i.e.
                                                                what will be the nature or status of
                                                                such order passed by the CIT(A)?"
                                                                3. "Whether, such order (supra)
                                                                passed by the CIT(A) is
                                                                appealable before the Tribunal
                                                                or not i.e. can such an order be
                                                                appealed against before the
                                                                Tribunal by way of an appeal
                                                                under section 253 of the Act, or
                                                                can be challenged only before the
                                                                Hon'ble High Court by way of
                                                                writ petition?"
                                                                4. "If such an order(Supra) is
                                                                found to be appealable before the
                                                                Tribunal, then can the Tribunal
                                                                entertain such an appeal against
                                                                such order without there being

                                                                                                                                        5
                                                              appeal before it against the order
                                                              of CIT(A) in appeal against the
                                                              order of the Assessing Officer or
                                                              other orders appealable under
                                                              section 246A of the Act, as the
                                                              case may be, for the reason that the
                                                              CIT(A) has not preferred to
                                                              decide the assessee's appeal
                                                              pending before him?"
2.   ITA No.            M/s Zazsons      S/Shri.              "Whether, on the facts and the Shri. S.V. Mehrotra,   Adj.as part-heard
     219/LKW/2009 and   Exports Ltd.     1. I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as A.M. (As per order       to 15.11.2013
     C.O.No.23/Lck/     Kanpur           2.N.K.Saini, A.M.    well as in law, the Revenue's dt.21.03.2013 of the
     2009 A.Y.2005-06                                         ground Nos.3 to 6 be allowed or Hon'ble President)
                                                              not?"
3.   SPNo.03/Lkw/2012   Smt.Uma Pandey, S/Shri.               SP No.03/Lkw/2012                 Shri.G.D.Agarwal,   Hearing is
     (A/o ITA                           Sunil Kumar           "Whether, the stay earlierHon'ble Vice-               awaited.
     188/Lkw/2010)                      Yadav,J.M.            granted by the Tribunal can bePresident (DZ and
     A.Y. 2007-08                       2.B.R.Jain,A.M.       extended till disposal of theLZ)
     SP.No.04/Lkw/      M/s.State Urban                       appeal in a case where the appeal
     2012               Development                           has been heard by the Tribunal
     (A/o ITA           Agency.                               and is pending with the Members
     103/Lkw/2012)                                            fororder?"                 Sd/-
     A.Y. 2007-08                                                                            J.M.
                                                              "Whether, on the peculiar facts,
                                                              circumstances of this case and in
                                                              law, there is any justification in
                                                              extending the stay of the disputed
                                                              demand that already had run
                                                              beyond 365 days or the application
                                                              so made by the assessee is liable to
                                                              be rejected?"            Sd/-
                                                                                     A.M.
                                                              SP No.04/Lkw/2012
                                                              "Whether, under the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case, the
                                                              outstanding demand can be stayed
                                                              outrightly or subject to payment of
                                                              part of demand in instalments as
                                                              proposed?"
                                                                    Sd/-              Sd/-
                                                                  J.M.               A.M

                                                                                                                                        6
4.   ITA No.        Smt. Uma Pandey S/Shri.           "Whether, under the facts and Shri.G.D.Agarwal,    Hearing is
     188/Lkw/2010                   1.Sunil Kumar     circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Vice-      awaited.
     A.Y. 2007-08                   Yadav,J.M.        payments received by the President (DZ/LZ)
                                    2.B.R.Jain,A.M.   assessee from M/s. Amit Poly
                                                      Yarn Ltd. (now known as M/s
                                                      Amitech Ind. Ltd) are receipt as
                                                      an advance against sales made
                                                      during      the      course    of
                                                      commercial transactions and
                                                      therefore provisions of section
                                                      2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act,
                                                      1961 are not attracted to these
                                                      payments or the aforesaid
                                                      payments are purely an
                                                      advance/loan made to the
                                                      assessee,       attracting    the
                                                      provisions of section 2(22)(e) of
                                                      the Act?
                                                       "Whether,      the     issue  of
                                                      allotment of shares for Rs.10
                                                      lakhs can be restored to the
                                                      Assessing Officer to investigate
                                                      the fact as to whether the
                                                      allotment of shares was
                                                      unilateral act of the company i.e
                                                      M/s. Amitech Ind. Ltd. or the
                                                      allotment was done at the instance
                                                      of the assessee in order determine
                                                      the applicability of provisions of
                                                      section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the
                                                      benefit accrued to the assessee on
                                                      allotment of shares or addition of
                                                      Rs.10 lakhs can be confirmed by
                                                      holding that benefit accrued to the
                                                      assessee on allotment of shares
                                                      attracts provisions of section
                                                      2(22)(e) of the Act on the basis of
                                                      material available on record?"
                                                            Sd/-                 Sd/-
                                                           J.M.                  A.M
                                                                                                                      7
     KOLKATA
     BENCH
1.   ITA Nos.            M/s Shyam Steel     S/Shri             "Whether in the facts and                  Hon'ble Vice-     Not yet fixed
     65/Kol/2010, &      Industries Ltd.,    1.George Mathan,   circumstances of the case the              President
     655/Kol/2011.       Kolkata.            J.M.               power subsidy received by the              Chennai/Kolkata
     A.Y.2006-07 2007-                       2.C.D.Rao,A.M.     assessee is capital in nature or           Zone.
     08                                                         revenue in nature ?"
2.   ITA No.             M/s Ceean           S/Shri             "Whether or not, on the facts              Hon'ble Vice-     Not yet fixed
     1120/Kol/2012.      Commerce (P)        1.Promod Kumar,    and in the circumstances of the            President
     A.Y.2003-04.        Ltd., Kolkata.      A.M.               case and in accordance with the            Chennai/Kolkata
                                             2.Mahavir Singh,   low, the value of sale                     Zone.
                                             J.M.               consideration to be adopted for
                                                                computing capital gains in the
                                                                hands of the assessee should be
                                                                taken at Rs.32,84,300/- or at Rs.
                                                                56,00,100/-? As the amendment in
                                                                section 50C by Finance (N0.2) Act,
                                                                2009, w.e.f. 1.10.2009, is to be treated
                                                                as clarificatory in nature and
                                                                retrospective in application".
3.   ITA NO.             Sri Partha Mitra,   S/Shri.            1."Whether in view of the                  Hon'ble Vice-     Not yet fixed
     848/Kol/2012        Kolkata.            1.Pramod Kumar,    provision of section 254(2A) of            President
                                             AM.                the Act as also the proviso                Chennai/Kolkata
                                             2.George Mathan,   thereto and the decision of the            Zone.
                                             JM.                Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
                                                                case of Chinnayappa Mudaliar
                                                                can the decision of the
                                                                Coordinate Bench of this
                                                                Tribunal in the case of
                                                                Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as also
                                                                the decision of the Hon';ble
                                                                Madhya Pradesh High Court in
                                                                the case of Estate of Late
                                                                Tukojirao Holkar - Vs.- CWT
                                                                be held to be applicable on the
                                                                facts of the case"
                                                                2."Whether in terms of the
                                                                provisions of Rule 19(2) of the
                                                                Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

                                                                                                                                             8
                                                               Rules read with Rule 24 & 25
                                                               (Appellate Tribunal) Rules,
                                                               1963, an appeal can be
                                                               dismissed in limine without
                                                               addressing the merits of the
                                                               appeal     just    because   the
                                                               appellant does not appear"?
                                                               3."Whether the decision in the
                                                               case of Multiplan India Pvt.
                                                               Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) will
                                                               hold good in law as on i.e. even
                                                               after insertion of Rule 24 & 25
                                                               of Appellate Tribunal Rules,
                                                               1963.?
                                                               4."Whether it is open to the
                                                               Tribunal to dismiss an appeal,
                                                               without addressing itself to the
                                                               merits of issues in appeal, because
                                                               one of the parties has not appeared
                                                               before the Tribunal"?
    PATNA BENCH
    (Circuit Bench,
    Ranchi)
    MA No.                Shri. Ghasi Ram   S/Shri.            "Whether, on the facts and in         Hon'ble Zonal    Pending for
    11 (Pat) / 2007       Agarwal, Ranchi   1. B. R. Mittal,   the circumstances of the case,        Vice President   hearing.
    arising out in                          J.M.               the     application   of     the      (KZ)
    IT(SS)A No.                             2. B.K. Haldar,    department for recall of the
    45/Pat/05) A.Y. 86-                     A.M.               order of the Tribunal dt. 21st
    87 to 97-98                                                June, 2006 passed in IT(ss)A
                                                               No. 91(Pat)/05 to delete the
                                                               amount of Rs.45,823/- is to be
                                                               allowed as held by the learned
                                                               Accountant Member or is to be
                                                               rejected as held by the learned
                                                               Judicial Member."
2   Int. Tax Appeal       M/s Coalsesce     S/Shri.            "Whether, in the facts and            Hon'ble Zonal    Pending for
    Nos. 06 to            Investment (P)    1. B. R. Mittal,   circumstances of the case, the        Vice-President   hearing.
    08/Pat/06             Ltd., Ranchi      J.M.               assessee was liable under the
    A.Ys.1997-98 to                         2. B.K. Haldar,    Interest Tax Act to pay interest
                                                                                                                                    9
    1999-2000                              A.M.              tax on the gross interest
                                                             received on the loans and
                                                             advances granted by it during
                                                             the     impugned   assessment
                                                             years."
    GUWAHATI
    BENCHES
1   ITA 47, 48 and       M/s Purbanchal    S/Shri.           1.    "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble   Not yet fixed.
    49(Gau)/2004         Safety Glassess   1.Hemant          circumstances of the case the President,
    A.Y.1996-97, 1997-   (P) Ltd.,         Sausarkar, J.M.   Ld. CIT(A) was justified in I.T.A.T.
    98 &                 Guwahati.         2.B.R.Kaushik,    deleting the additions made by
    1998-99                                A.M.              the A.O. under section 69 of the
                                                             Act as undisclosed investment
                                                             amounting to Rs. 9,21,461/-,
                                                             Rs.2,20,990 and Rs.3,66,526/-
                                                             for the assessment years 1996-
                                                             97, 1997-98 and 1998-99
                                                             respectively on the ground that
                                                             the reassessments made by the
                                                             A.O. for the assessment years in
                                                             question were based on the
                                                             information received from
                                                             Bureau       of     Investigation
                                                             (Economic               Offence)
                                                             (Guwahati) and that the
                                                             information was based on
                                                             material    and     documentary
                                                             evidence to substantiate the
                                                             assessments?"
                                                             2.     "Whether on the facts and
                                                             in the circumstances of the case
                                                             the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is
                                                             required to be set aside with the
                                                             direction to decide the issue
                                                             afresh after giving proper
                                                             opportunity to the assessee on
                                                             the     relevant     information
                                                             received by the A.O. on
                                                             25.02.2003 from the Bureau of
                                                                                                                         10
                                                        Investigation          (Economic
                                                        Offence)?"
                                                        3. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                         the circumstances of the case,
                                                         the Ld. Judicial Member was
                                                         justified in holding that the
                                                         issuance of notice u/s 148
                                                         cannot hold good and,
                                                         therefore, the assessment u/s
                                                         143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is
                                                         illegal, unjustified and void or
                                                         the Ld. Accountant Member
                                                         was justified in holding that the
                                                         reopening of assessment and
                                                         subsequent assessment made by
                                                         the A.O. is justified?"
                                                        As per the order dt.16.04.2008
                                                        of the Hon'ble President
                                                        "All the three questions would be
                                                        considered u/s 255(4) by the
                                                        President."
2.   ITA Nos. 96, 97 &  Brooke Bond   S/Shri.           1. "Whether, the learned Shri.Pramod        Adjourned Sine
     98(Gau)/2002       India Ltd.,   1.Hemant          CIT(A) has erred in law and in Kumar,A.M.   -die
     A.Y.1990-91, 1991- Calcutta.     Sausarkar, J.M.   facts in directing the A.O. to
     92, 1992-93                      2.B.R.Kaushik,    consider the income from
                                      A.M.              interest and dividend as
                                                        business income for the purpose
                                                        of eligible deduction u/s 32AB
                                                        of the Act, in view of the
                                                        decision in the case of CIT Vs.
                                                        Dinjoy Tea Estate (P) Ltd.
                                                        (1997) 224 ITR 263 (Gau), 271
                                                        ITR 123 (Cal), 273 ITR 470
                                                        (Mad) and 224 ITR 263
                                                        (Gau)?"
                                                        2. "Whether, this Bench of the
                                                        Tribunal working under the
                                                        jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
                                                        Guwahati High Court can allow
                                                        the claim of the assessee that
                                                                                                                 11
                                                           income from interest and
                                                           dividend is to be taken as
                                                           business income for the purpose
                                                           of eligible deduction u/s 32 AB
                                                           of the Act in view of the
                                                           decisions in the cases of (i)
                                                           Britania Industries Ltd. Vs.
                                                           JCIT (2004) 271 ITR 123 (Cal)
                                                           and (ii) DCIT Vs.United
                                                           Nilgiris    Tea    Estate    Co.
                                                           Ltd.(2005) 273 ITR 470
                                                           (Mad)?"
                                                           3. "Whether, on the facts and
                                                           circumstances of the case the claim
                                                           of expenditure of Rs.94,363/- and
                                                           Rs.1,26,718/- attributable to the
                                                           foreign tour of Mrs. R. Sen, wife
                                                           of the director, Mr. D. Sen, was
                                                           not wholly and exclusively for the
                                                           purpose of business?"
                                                           4. "Whether, in view of change
                                                           of stand by the assessee
                                                           regarding nature and purpose of
                                                           expenditure taken before the
                                                           Ld.CIT(A) for the first time the
                                                           issue was required to be
                                                           restored to the A.O. for fresh
                                                           adjudication after enquiring into
                                                           the claim of the assessee?"

3.   ITA No.         Shri. Shyam       S/Shri.             (1) "Whether, on the basis of Hon'ble       Not yet fixed.
     09/Gau/2006     Sunder Malpani,   Hemant Sausarkar,   facts and in the circumstances President,
     A.Y.2002-2003   Jorhat            J.M.                of the case, the assessee is I.T.A.T.
                                       B.R.Kaushik,        entitled to deduction u/s 80IB?"
                                       A.M.                (2) "Whether, in view of the
                                                           decision in the case of CIT Vs
                                                           Down Town Hospital Ltd. 251
                                                           ITR 683 (Gau), the issue was
                                                           required to be restored to the

                                                                                                                        12
                                                                   learned CIT(A) for fresh
                                                                   adjudication after ascertaining
                                                                   whether all the conditions u/s
                                                                   80 IB are fulfilled?"
4.   ITA 161/Gau/2003     M/s 3R,             S/Shri               1. "Whether in the facts and Shri.                Not yet fixed
     Block period f       Gauwahati.          1. Hement            circumstances of these cases the D.K.Tyagi,J.M.
     1989-90 to 1998-99                       Sausarkar, J.M.      block    assessments   can    be
     & 1999-2000.                             2. B.R.Kaushik,      considered invalid?"
                                              A.M.                 2. "Whether, in the facts and
     ITA 162/Gau/2004     M/s Panbazar                             circumstances of these cases it
     Block period 1989-   Diagnostic                               can be held that the A.O. did
     90 to 1998-99 &      Centre, Guwahati.                        not bring on record the prima
     1999-2000                                                     facie evidence for invoking ------ do -------
                                                                   jurisdiction and initiation of
                                                                   proceedings u/s 158 BD of the
                                                                   Act?"
     CHENNAI
     BENCH
1.   ITA 759/Mds/2008     M/s Laurel          S/Shri.              1. For that on the facts and Shri N.Barathvaja    Fixed on
                          Apparels,           1. N.S.Saini,A.M.    circumstances of the case and Sankar, Vice-       08.11.2013
                          Tirupur.            2. Challa Nagendra   considering the decision of the President, (BZ)
                                              Prasad,J.M.          Hon'ble AP High Court in the
                                                                   case of Spectra Shares and Scrips
                                                                   Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT [2013] 354 ITR
                                                                   35(AP) when the CIT has held the
                                                                   order of assessment passed by the
                                                                   Assessing Officer as erroneous as
                                                                   well as prejudicial to the interests
                                                                   of the Revenue on the ground of
                                                                   non-following of the decision of
                                                                   jurisdictional High Court, can such
                                                                   revisional order passed u/s 263 by
                                                                   the CIT be upheld by the Tribunal
                                                                   on the ground that the order passed
                                                                   by the Assessing officer was
                                                                   erroneous and prejudicial to the
                                                                   interests of the Revenue on the
                                                                   ground that assessment order was
                                                                   passed by the Assessing officer
                                                                   without application of mind?
                                                                   2. For that on the facts and
                                                                                                                                     13
circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal, without going through
the assessment records, can arrive
at the conclusion that the
assessment order was passed by
the Assessing Officer without
calling for any details with regard
to the claim made by the assessee
u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of
duty drawback nor made any
enquiry before allowing such
deduction while completing the
assessment, especially when the
authority whom power of revision
is vested by the law had not so
found or alleged?

3. For that on the facts and
circumstances of the case, when
the CIT in exercise of power
available with him u/s 263 of the
Act has directed to withdraw the
deduction allowed u/s 80IB in
respect of duty drawback and has
not restored the issue back to the
file of the Assessing Officer for
passing the order afresh after
application of mind, can the
Tribunal conclude that the CIT
was of the opinion that the
assessment order passed by the
Assessing Officer was erroneous
on the ground of non-application
of mind by the Assessing Officer
in respect of the issue involved?
4.For that on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
order of the CIT should have been
upheld by the Tribunal as opined
by the ld. JM or to have been held
as untenable as opined by the
AM.?

                                      14
     BANGALORE
     BENCH
1.   MP.No            Shri Mahesh       S/Shri/Smt.          1."Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble   Vice- Fixed on
     41/Bang/2010     Hasmukh Boriya,   1.P.Madhavi Devi,   the circumstances of the case, President (BZ)    06.01.2014
     (ITA 773/B/10)                        J.M.             there is any mistake apparent
                                        2. A.Mohan          from record        rectifiable u/s
                                          Alankamony,       254(2) of the IT Act, when the
                                          A.M.              Tribunal       adjudicated     the
                                                            Revenue's appeal on the sole
                                                            ground of limitation in favor of
                                                            the Revenue, but not remitted
                                                            back the issue to CIT(A) for
                                                            adjudication on merits when
                                                            such        an       issue      of
                                                            remission/merits was not before
                                                            the Tribunal either by a prayer
                                                            submission or cross objection
                                                            by the Assessee/AR other than
                                                            the only argument to defend his
                                                            ground on technicality?"
                                                            2."Whether, the inclusion of a
                                                            copy of a favourable judgment
                                                            to the assessee on the issue of
                                                            merits in the paper book
                                                            produced before the ITAT
                                                            would amount to be a ground or
                                                            submission        enabling     the
                                                            assessee     to     invoke     the
                                                            rectification jurisdiction of the
                                                            Tribunal, when during the
                                                            course of the hearing there were
                                                            no      such     arguments      or
                                                            submission on merits/remission
                                                            before the Tribunal by the
                                                            Assessee/AR?"




                                                                                                                          15
     AHMEDABAD
     BENCH
1.   ITA.No.462/Ahd/02 Redex Protech      S/Shri,              "Whether,        the     learned Hon'ble Vice Date awaited
     C.O. 28/Ahd/2002, Pvt. Ltd.,         1. D.K.Tyagi,JM.     Commissioner of Income-tax President
     ITA No.823/Ahd/04                    2. A.Mohan           (A)-IX, Ahmedabad has erred ( Ahd. Zone)
                                          Alankamony,AM.       in law and on facts in
                                                               entertaining the appeal in gross
                                                               violation of provisions of
                                                               section 249(4) of the Income-
                                                               tax Act, 1961 even as the
                                                               assessee had not paid admitted
                                                               tax on the returned income?




     RAJKOT BENCH
1.   MA. Nos. 61 to      Shambhubhai      S/Shri               "Whether on the facts and            Hon'ble    Vice Adjourned
     66/Rjt/2010(A.O. of Mahadev Ahir,    1.T.K.Sharma, JM.    circumstances of the case, all the   President,      sine-die.
     ITA Nos. 637 to     Gandhidham.      2.D.K.Srivastava,    six Miscellaneous Appelications      (Ahmedabad
     639 & 707 to                         AM.                  filed by the Revenue should be       Zone)
     709/Rjt/2010)                                             dismissed or be allowed?"

     CHANDIGARH
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.            Shri . R.K.Garg   S/Shri .             Per J.M.                         Hon'ble Vice        Fixed on
     142/CHD/1999                         1.M.A.Bakshi, VP     1. "Whether, on the facts and in President           22.11.2013
     A.Y.97-98                            2. N.K.Saini. A.M.   the circumstances of this case, (Chandigarh)
     ITA 550, 489, 586,                                        the    guarantee    commission
     587 & 588/CHD/99                                          received by the assessees is a
     A.Y.87-88, 90-91,                                         revenue receipt or a capital
     98-99, 1999-2000 &                                        receipt?"
     2000-2001                                                 2. "Whether, the decision of the
                                                               Tribunal in assessee's own case
                                                               for the assessment year 88-89 to
                                                               the effect that the guarantee
                                                               commission is a revenue receipt
     ITA No.             Smt. Sunaina                          is inapplicable in view the
     143/CHD/1999        Garg                                  decision of the Hon'ble Madras

                                                                                                                                 16
A.Y.97-98                              High Court in the case of CIT v.
ITA Nos. 589, 590                      Pondicherry            Industrial
& 591/CHD/2002                         Promotion Development &
A.Y. 1998-99,                          Investment Corporation Ltd.
1999-2000,                             (supra), and the decision of
 2000-2001                             Delhi High Court in the case of
                                       Suessen Textile Bearings Ltd.
ITA 503/CHD/2002    Shri . R.K.Garg,   etc. v. Union of India etc.
A.Y. 1997-98        & Sons(HUF)        (supra)?"
                                       3. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                       the circumstances of the case,
                                       the additional ground raised by
                                       the revenue for the assessment
                                       year 90-91 only deserves to be
                                       admitted and matter for all the
                                       assessment years remitted to the
                                       CIT(A)      for    giving     an
                                       opportunity to the AO to
                                       distinguish the two High Courts cases,
                                       referred to above notwithstanding the
                                       fact that both the Members of the
                                       Bench have decided the issue relating
                                       to assessability of the guarantee
                                       commission on merits?"
                                       Per A.M.
                                       1. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                       the circumstances of the case, it
                                       could be held that the guarantee
                                       commission received by the
                                       assessees against their personal
                                       assets was a capital receipt?"
                                       2. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                       the circumstances of the case
                                       and also in law, the Ld. CIT(A)
                                       should have provided and
                                       opportunity of being heard to
                                       the Assessing Officer when
                                       there was a specific direction by
                                       the Tribunal to do so, before
                                       arriving at a conclusion on the
                                                                                17
                                                            basis of judgment of Hon'ble
                                                            Delhi High Court in the case of
                                                            Suessen Textile bearing Ltd.
                                                            and others V Union of India,
                                                            CC2 JJX 0082 and Hon'ble
                                                             Madras High Court in the case
                                                            of CIT V. Pondicherry Indl
                                                            Promotion     Development       and
                                                            Investment Corp. Ltd. (2000) 245
                                                            ITR 859, that the amount received
                                                            by assessees was a capital receipt.
     AMRITSAR
     BENCH
1.   IT(SS)A No.       Sh.Vinod Goel       S/Shri            Shri H.S.Sidhu.                  Zonal Vice     Pending for
     14/ASR/2005.                          1. H.S. Sidhu,   1.        "Whether, on the facts President(CZ)   fixation
                                           J.M.             and in the circumstances of
     IT(SS)A           M/s Sidhant         2.Mehar          present case, the issues in the
     No.13/ASR/2005.   Deposits &          Singh,A.M.       present appeals are covered by
                       Advances(P) Ltd.                     the decision of the Hon'ble
     IT(SS)A           M/s Trimurti                         Supreme Court in the case of
     No.12/ASR/2005    Deposits &                           Manish Maheshwary Vs. ACIT
                       Advances (P) Ltd.                    (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) and
                                                            the decision of the Hon'ble
                                                            jurisdictional High Court in
                                                            Income tax Appeal No.519 of
                                                            2009 decided on 20-7-2010 in
                                                            the case of CIT-I, Ludhiana Vs.
                                                            Mridula Prop. Dhruv fabics,
                                                            Ludhiana?"
                                                            2.        "Whether, on the facts
                                                            and in the circumstances of the
                                                            present case, non-production of
                                                            records by the revenue in spite
                                                            of various opportunities given
                                                            to them, benefit should go to the
                                                            revenue or the asessee?"
                                                            3.        "Whether, on the facts
                                                            and in the circumstances of the
                                                            present case, it is mandatory a
                                                                                                                           18
pre-requisite       that      the
satisfaction to be recorded in
the cases of persons searched
before issuance of notice under
section 158 BD of the Income
tax Act. 1961 to the assesse i.e.
other person?"
Shri. Mehar Singh,AM.
1.               "Whether on the
facts and on law, valid Block
Assessments can be cancelled,
on the ground of assumed non-
production of record indicating
recording of satisfaction u/s
158BD, in a case where such
satisfaction is duly evidenced
by documents available in the
paper book filed by the Deptt.
and reproduced verbatim in the
order dated 06.12.2006 passed
by the Bench and subsequent
M.A.dated             21.01.2009,
dismissed by the Bench, without
even        considering      such
satisfaction?'
2.        " Whether, on the facts
and on law Block Assessments
can be cancelled by applying
the decision of jurisdictional
High Court, relied upon by the
assessee, which lays down the
law that satisfaction under
section 158BD be recorded
before the conclusion of the
Block      Assessments      under
section 158BC of the Act, in the
absence of vital details of dates
of completion of such block
assessment being determinative
                                    19
                                                          factor, in determining the
                                                          applicability of the said
                                                          decision, where the parties to
                                                          the disputes failed to furnish
                                                          such dates?"
     JAIPUR BENCH
1.   ITA No.        M/s. Mahaveer      S/Shri             Shri R.K. Gupta, JM.                Hon'ble Vice   Pending
     937/Jp/2011    Exports, Jaipur.   1.R.K.Gupta, JM.   1. "Whether, in the facts and       President
                                       2.Sanjay           circumstance, the addition of       (Ahmedabad
                                       Arora,A.M.         Rs.3,58,455/- made by one of        Zone)
                                                          the partners S mt.Kanta
                                                          Nowlkha is liable to be deleted
                                                          or to be confirmed?"
                                                          2. "Whether, in the facts and
                                                          circumstances, the addition of
                                                          Rs. 1,00,000/- each in the name
                                                          of Shri Nem Chand Nowalkha
                                                          and Shri Pankaj Ghiya of the
                                                          assessee firm made as capital
                                                          contribution is liable to be
                                                          deleted or liable to be set aside
                                                          to the file of the Assessing
                                                          Officer?"
                                                          3. "Whether, in view of the
                                                          decision        of       Hon'ble
                                                          Jurisdictional High Court in
                                                          case of Kewal Krishan &
                                                          Partners, 18 DTR 121 (Raj.) the
                                                          entire    capital    contribution
                                                          made/contributed      prior    to
                                                          commencencement of business
                                                          in liable to be deleted or to be
                                                          confirmed in part and partly to
                                                          be set aside to the file of
                                                          Assessing Officer ?"

                                                          Shri Sanjay Arora,AM.
                                                          1. "Whether, section 68 of the
                                                          Income-tax Act, 1961 can be
                                                                                                                       20
invoked where the assessee fails
to satisfactorily explain the
nature and source of a case
credit found recorded by him in
his books of account for the
relevant year, or is the Revenue
also required to establish that
the assessee had in existence a
source of income before the
date on which such cash credit
was recorded, i.e., in order to
treat the same as unexplained
u/s. 68?"

2. "Whether, the addition of the
impugned sums as unexplained
credits u/s.68 can be deleted on
the sole ground that the assessee
had no source of income prior
to the date on which the same
were found recorded in the
assessee's books of account,
notwithstanding the fact that it
has completely failed to
discharge the burden of
satisfactorily explaining the
nature and source thereof?"
3. "Whether, the view that a
cash credit recorded in the
books of account of a
partnership firm ostensibly as
capital contributed by a partner
cannot       be      treated     as
unexplained u/s.68 in the hands
of the firm even if the
assesseefirm          fails      to
satisfactorily explain the nature
and source thereof, and more
particularly if its fails to adduce
                                      21
                                                             evidence to establish that the
                                                             alleged capital was actually
                                                             contributed by the partner, is
                                                             sustainable in law in view of the
                                                             decision by the Hon'ble
                                                             jurisdictional high court in CIT
                                                             v.     Kishorilal     Santoshilal
                                                             (1995)216 ITR 9 (Raj.)?"
                                                             4.1 "Whether, can capital be
                                                             contributed by a partner to a
                                                             partnership-firm prior to the
                                                             coming into existence of the
                                                             said firm? In any case, whether
                                                             the claim of capital contribution
                                                             by way of transfer of goods on
                                                             June 1,2006 can be accepted in
                                                             view of the fact that the
                                                             assessee-firm itself came into
                                                             existence     only    on      July
                                                             11,2006?"
                                                             "Is the remand in the case of
                                                             two cash credits of Rs. 1 lac
                                                             each in the name of two
                                                             partners justified under the facts
                                                             and circumstances of the case,
                                                             even as contemplated by the
                                                             Hon,ble jurisdictional high
                                                             court in the case of Rajshree
                                                             Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CIT
                                                             (2002) 256 ITR 331 (Raj.)?"
2.   ITA No.363 &      M/s Escorts Heart   S/Shri            Shri R.K.Gupta,J.M.                Hon'ble Vice     Adjourned
     326/Jp/2011       Institute &         1. R.K.Gupta,     1.      Whether in the facts and President (Delhi   sine-die.
     A.Y.2008-09.      Research               JM.            circumstances of the case, the Zone)
                       Centre,Jaipur.      2. SanjayArora,   provisions of section 194J are
     ITA               Escort Heart           AM.            applicable on the payments
     No.1123/Jp/2011   Super Speciality                      made to blood bank ?"
     A.Y.2009-10.      Hospital                              2.      Whether in the facts and
                       Ltd.,Jaipur.                          circumstances of the case, the
                                                             provisions of section 192 or
                                                                                                                             22
section 194J are applicable in
case of retainer doctors ?
3.      Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, on
the mark up/profits earned by
Fortis Health World Ltd.
(FHWL) on sale of medicines to
the assessee is a commission
chargeable to tax under section
194H or is a sale on which
provisions of section194H are
not applicable?
4.      Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, on
the    mark      up/profits   the
provisions of section 194C can
be invoked by the Tribunal
where neither this is a case of
department nor of the assessee ?
    Shri Sanjay Arora, AM.
1.1 Whether the payments to
the blood banks for carrying out
investigation procedures, are, in
the facts and circumstances of
the case, made by the assessee-
hospital or by its patients?
1.2 Whether, while deciding an
issue under appeal, the tribunal
required      to     apply     its
independent mind thereon,
without being influenced by the
decision by the first appellate
authority for a subsequent year,
particularly when the same was
not pressed during hearing and,
accordingly, the parties not
heard thereon?
2. I am in agreement with the
Question No. 2 as proposed by
                                     23
                                                             my ld. Brother, JM.
                                                             3.1       Whether, can on the
                                                             admitted set of facts brought on
                                                             record by the parties, the
                                                             inferential finding/s by the
                                                             Appellate Tribunal differ from
                                                             that of either party before it, or
                                                             is it to necessarily match
                                                             therewith? Further, is not the
                                                             tribunal duty bound to, in
                                                             deciding an issue before it,
                                                             apply the law as applicable to
                                                             the facts found by it, including
                                                             such inferential finding/s?
                                                             3.2     Whether, in the facts and
                                                             circumstances of the case, the
                                                             supply of medicines by Fortis
                                                             Health World Ltd.(FHWL) to the
                                                             assessee-company for its IPD
                                                             Pharmacy,       constitutes     an
                                                             independent business being
                                                             carried on by FHWL, or is the
                                                             said supply only the result of
                                                             the work carried out by its
                                                             relevant manpower, whose
                                                             services      stand        already
                                                             contracted to the assessee
                                                             company and subject to tax
                                                             deduction u/s. 194C of the Act?
3.   ITA              Smt. Meena Baid,   S/Shri              Whether in the facts and Shri R.S. Syal,   Adjourned
     No.534/JP/2011   Jaipur.             1.R.K.Gupta,J.M.   circumstances of the case, the A.M.        sine-die.
                                          2.Sanjay Arora,    order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) is
                                          A.M.               liable to be confirmed or to be
                                                             reversed?
                                                                                   Sd/-
                                                                          (R.K.Gupta,J.M.)

                                                             1.      Is the decision in the
                                                             instant appeal, in the facts and
                                                                                                                    24
                                                            circumstances of its case,
                                                            governed, or liapble to be so, by
                                                            the principle or doctrine of
                                                            precedence by the decision by
                                                            the Tribunal in the case of ITO
                                                            Vs. Ratan Lal Baid(in ITA No.
                                                            572/JP/20-09 dated 30-10-
                                                            2009), which proceeds on the
                                                            premises that the impugned
                                                            transactions (in that case) are
                                                            genuine and, further, form part
                                                            of the assessee's business, or
                                                            not so?
                                                            2.       "Whether, in the facts
                                                            and circumstances of the instant
                                                            case, the impugned transactions
                                                            are collusive and sham, so that
                                                            loss ascribed thereto is to be
                                                            ignored, and is in any case a
                                                            capital loss or a speculative
                                                            loss, or not so ?"
                                                                               Sd/-
                                                                       Sanjay Arora,A.M.
4.   ITA No. 224/JU/04   M/s.Hindustan    S/Shri            1. Whether on the facts and in Hon'ble Vice
     ITA No. 298/JU/04   Zinc Ltd.,      1.R.K.Gupta,J.M.   the circumstances of the case, President (Delhi
                         Udaipur.        2.Sanjay Arora,    the issue in respect of Zone)
                                         A.M.S/Shri         disallowance         of       Rs.
                                                            1,65,50,475/- on account of
                                                            prior period expenses is liable
                                                            to be restored to the file of the
                                                            A.O. or liable to be confirmed.?

                                                            2.Whether on the facts and in
                                                            the circumstances of the case,
                                                            the issue in respect of
                                                            disallowance of Rs. 304,82 lacs
                                                            out of extra-ordinary items
                                                            relating to the amount written
                                                            off as a result of the closure of
                                                                                                              25
Degana Tungsten Mine Unit is
liable to restored back to the file
of the A.O. or liable to
confirmed ?

3. Whether on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case,
the issue in respect of deleting
the disallowance of Rs.
6,88,62,383/- being the Mine
Development Expenses is liable
to be deleted or to be set aside
to the file of the ld. CIT(A)?

4. Whether on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case,
the issue in respect of deleting
the disallowance of Rs. 3.50
crores made by the A.O. u/s
40A(9) of I.T. Act is liable to be
deleted or to be set aside to the
file of the A.O.?
                    Sd/-
              (R.K.Gupta,J.M.)

1.(a) Whether the finding by the
authorities below that the
assessee's claim qua prior
period expenses (for Rs.165.50
lakhs) does not represent any
disputed liability crystallized
during the relevant year is
correct on facts and has also not
been suitably met before the
Tribunal, as was also found by
it for the immediately two
preceding years, meriting its
dismissal, or it is not so, so that
the matter would require a set
                                      26
aside to the file of the assessing
authority for verification?

(b) In any view of the matter, is
there any scope for application
of the decisions in the case of
CIT v. Nagri Mills Co.
Ltd.[1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom.)
and CIT v. Vishnu Industrial
Gases (P).Ltd. (Del.,in ITA
No.229/1988 dated 06/5/2008),
relied upon by the assessee, in
the facts and circumstances of
the case?

2.(a) Does the question as to
whether       the     assessee's
Unit(Degana Mine) constitutes
a distinct and separate business
or not, a relevant factor in
deciding its claim in respect of
`Extraordinary Items', made at
Rs. 304.82 lakhs?

(b) Whether the assessee's said
claim can, in any case, be
decided on the basis of the
material on record, or it
required to be set aside back to
the file of the Assessing Officer
for fresh determination and
adjudication?

3.(a) Whether, the adjudication
of the assessee's claim in
respect of `Mine Development
Expenses'    (for    Rs.688.62
lakhs.) made in two separate
sums of Rs. 568.07 lakhs and
                                     27
Rs. 120.55 lakhs, is , in the facts
and circumstances of the case,
to be made considering it as a
single claim, or separately?

(b) Whether, in any view of the
matter, the said issue warrants
being set aside back to the file
of the A.O. for considering the
factual aspects of the case as
well as the decision by the
Tribunal for the immediately
two        preceding        years,
particularly for A.Y. 1996-97
(vide      order      in     ITA
No.46/JU/2004               dated
30.3.2009), and a decision in
light thereof, as well as the law
as explained by the Hon'ble
courts of law, as in the case of
CIT v. Pioneer Minerals [1992]
107 CTR (Raj.) 230, or
warrants being allowed as
claimed, i.e., under section
37(1) of the Act, in full?

4. Whether the issue qua the
disallowances under section
40A(9) of the Act (at Rs.350
lakhs) is to be set aside for
passing a speaking order in
accordance with law after
considering the facts of the
case, as also decided by the
Tribunal for immediately two
preceding years, of is to be
allowed in the facts and
circumstances of this year?

                                      28
5.   ITA No.             M/s Grass Field     S/Shri              "Whether on the peculiar facts Hon'ble Vice
     730/JU/2011         Farms & Resorts     1.B.R.Jain,AM.      and circumstances of this case, President (Delhi
                         Pvt. Ltd.,Jaipur.   2. V.Durga          there is any justification in Zone)
                                             Rao,JM.             sustenance of penalty imposed
                                                                 under section 271(1) ( c) of the
                                                                 Act?"
     JODHPUR
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.362(JU)/10   Smt. Supriya        S/Shri              "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble            Vice- Adjourned sine
                         Kanwar, Jodhpur.    1. JoginderSingh,   circumstances of the case, solitary President       die
                                                J.M.             transaction of purchase and sale of (Mumbai Zone)
                                             2. K.G.Bansal,      the same agricultural land with
                                                A.M.             standing crops situated beyond the
                                                                 prescribed      municipal limits,
                                                                 amounts to adventure in the nature
                                                                 of trade?"
                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                            (Joginder Singh,JM)
                                                                 "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                 the circumstances of the case
                                                                 and sale of five pieces of
                                                                 agricultural land with standing
                                                                 crop, by way of separate
                                                                 conveyance deeds, beyond the
                                                                 prescribed distance from any
                                                                 municipal council, amount to
                                                                 transactions on capital account
                                                                 or adventure in the nature of
                                                                 trade?"
                                                                                        Sd/-
                                                                                  (K.G.Bansal)
                                                                                      A.M.




                                                                                                                                      29
                           INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

                        LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 16.10.2013.

Sr.   Appeal No.        Name of the      Bench                 Points involved                           To Whom            Remarks
No                      Assessee                                                                         assigned
      MUMBAI BENCH
3.    ITA 5724/M/2011   M/s.             S/Shri.                  Shri . I.P.Bansal, J.M.                       Shri        Heard on
      ITA 5163/M/2011   D.H.Securities    1.I.P. Bansal,J.M.   Whether on the facts and in the U.B.S.Bedi,                  13.09.2013
      A.Y.2008-2009     Pvt.Ltd.          2.B.Ramakotaiah,     circumstances of the case disallowance J.M.
                                         A.M.                  under section 14A of the Income Tax Act,
                                                               1961(the Act) can be made where dividend
                                                               income has been earned on the shares held as
                                                               stock in trade?
                                                               Shri. Sanjay Arora, A.M.
                                                               1.       Whether it is permissible for the
                                                               Tribunal to base its' decision on the decisions
                                                               by the co-ordinate benches which were
                                                               neither cited nor referred to at the time of
                                                               hearing, or even before the authorities below,
                                                               without confronting them to the parties, in
                                                               view of the settled principles of natural
                                                               justice, applied by the hon'ble jurisdictional
                                                               high court in, inter alia, the case of Naresh K.
                                                               Pahuja Vs. ITAT [2009] 224 CTR(B0m)
                                                               284?
                                                                   2. Whether the judgment of the Hon'ble
                                                               Karnataka High Court in CCI Ltd. Vs. Jt.
                                                               CIT [2012] 250 CTR 291 (Kar), which has
                                                               not considered the applicability of the
                                                               judgment of the hon'ble jurisdictional high
                                                               court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.
                                                               Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom)
                                                               to the issue under appeal, can be followed, as
                                                                                                                       30
it has been in the decisions referred to by the
ld. J.M. in his dissenting order, or is the said
judgment of the hon'ble jurisdictional high
court, which has since been followed by the
Hon'ble Calcutta high court in Dhanuka &
Sons Vs. CIT [2011] 339 ITR 319 (Cal),
continues to hold the field in respect of the
issue under appeal?
3. Whether the decision by the Hon'ble
Karnataka High Court in CCI Ltd. (supra) is
the solitary judgment by a high court, as
observed by the ld. JM in his dissenting
order, notwithstanding the fact that the
Hon'ble Calcutta high court has also dealt
with the issue under appeal, considering the
decision by the apex court in CIT Vs. Walfort
Share and Stock Brokers P.Ltd. [2010] 326
ITR 1 (SC) (supra) as well as by the Hon'ble
jurisdictional high court in Godrej & Boyce
(supra)?
4. Whether the tribunal can be said to have
taken a consistent view in the matter, as
observed by the ld. JM in his dissenting
order, notwithstanding the fact that the
tribunal has also, as in American Express
Bank Ltd. (in ITA No. 5904 &
6022/Mum/2010 dated 08.08.2012) and Dy.
CIT Vs. Damani Estated & Finance Pvt. Ltd.
( in ITA No. 3029/Mum/2012 dated
17.07.2013),      following    the      Hon'ble
jurisdictional high court in Godrej & Boyce
(supra) and Hon'ble Calcutta high court in
Dhanuka & Sons (supra), taken a view in
conformity with the said judgments?
5. Whether the order as proposed by the
A.M. is by culling out and based on the
principles of apportionment governing the
application of section 14A, as explained by
the hon'ble court in Godrej & Boyce (supra),
                                                   31
                                                                       upholding the order by the tribunal passed
                                                                       following the decision in ITO Vs. Daga
                                                                       Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 117
                                                                       ITD 169 (Mum)(SB), or does the same
                                                                       represent an out of context reading of the said
                                                                       decision by the jurisdictional High Court,
                                                                       which is therefore not germane or relevant to
                                                                       the issue?
                                                                       6. Whether, even on facts, can it be at all
                                                                       said that no expenditure in relation to the
                                                                       dividend income stands incurred by an
                                                                       assessee where the shares yielding such
                                                                       income are held as stock-in-trade?
     JABALPUR BENCH
1.   ITA No.               Shri. Anil Jaiswal,   S/Shri                "Whether on the facts and the circumstances Hon'ble              Heard on
     327/Jab/2009          Jabalpur              1.I.S.Verma, J.M.     of the case as well as in law, the CIT(A) was President,        18.09.2013
     A25/10-2004                                 2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   justified in deleting the addition made, while I.T.A.T.
                                                                       making assessment under section 153A read with
                                                                       section 143(3) of the Act on protective basis?"

     GUWAHATI BENCH
1.   ITA No. 25/Gau/2005   M/s Baid              S/Shri.               "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri.Pramod                   Heard on
     A.Y.1996-97           Commercial            1.Hemant Sausarkar,   circumstances of the case the transport Kumar,A.M.              04.04.2012
                           Enterprises Ltd.,     J.M.                  subsidy is to be treated as capital in nature in
                           Guwahati.             2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   view of decisions in the following cases-
                                                                       i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR 847                       Heard on
2.   ITA No. 20/Gau/2005   M/s Shiva Sakti                             (Gau)                                                           04.04.2012
     A.Y.2001-2002         Floor Mills (P)                             ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And
                           Ltd., Tinsukia                              Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC)
     C.O.No.02/Gau/2005                                                iii) DCIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003)
                                                                       263 ITR 357 (Gau)
                           M/s Virgo                                   iv) CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products Ltd. 251                      Heard on
3.   ITA No.165/Gau/2004   Cements Ltd.,                               ITR 427(SC) and                                                 03.04.2012
     A.Y.2001-2002         Gauwahati.                                  v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT 238
                                                                       ITR 354(Cal).




                                                                                                                                  32
33
                         INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
            STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.06.2013


Sr       Appeal No.         Name of the          Bench               Points involved             To whom        REMARKS
No                           Assesses                                                            assigned

     MUMBAI BENCH
1.   ITA Nos. 525 to      Mrs. Sumanlata   S/Shri.            1. "Whether, non-issuance of Zonal Vice-        Fixed on
     530/Mum/2008,        Bansal, Mumbai   1. R.S.Padvekar,   the notice as provided in Sub.- President(MZ)   31.07.2013
     A.Ys.1999-2000 to                        J.M.            sec.(2) to Section 143 of the I.T.
     2004-05                               2.B.Ramakotaiah,   Act in the case of assessment
                                             A.M.             framed       u/sec.153A,        in
                                                              consequence of search under
                                                              sec. 132, is merely an
                                                              irregularity and the same is
                                                              curable?"
                                                              2. "Whether ,on the facts of the
                                                              case, failure on the part of the
                                                              Assessessing Officer (A.O.) to
                                                              issue notice to the assessee as
                                                              per provisions of Sub-sec.(2) to
                                                              Section 143 shall have the
                                                              effect of rendering the entire
                                                              assessment framed u/sec. 153A
                                                              of the Act as null and void?"

2.   ITA 5229/M/2004      M/s. Standard    S/Shri.            "Whether on the facts and Shri. R.S. Syal,      After the
     & 5303/M/2004        Chartered Bank   1.R.S.Padvekar,    circumstances of the case A.M.p                 Disposal of MA
     A.Y. 1996-97                            J.M.             interest      income        of
                                           2.Rajendra         Rs.73,92,16,611/-
                                             Singh, A.M.      (Rs.39,23,71,781+Rs.34,68,44,
                                                                                                                               34
                                                              830) is asseable to tax in the
                                                              year under consideration?"
     PUNE BENCHES
1.   ITA             No. M/s Audyogik     S/Shri.             1.     "In    the    facts    and Zonal Vice-    Fixed on
     1712/PN/2007,       Shikshan Mandal, 1. Mukul Shrawat,   circumstances of the case, President(MZ)      19/07/2013
     for A.Y. 2004-05.   Pune,            J.M.                whether the property of the trust
                                          2.D. Karunakara     i.e. car, be held `made
                                          Rao, A.M.           available' for the use of the
                                                              trustee, specified person u/s
                                                              13(3) of the Income Tax Act
                                                              1961?"
                                                              2.     "In    the    facts    and
                                                              circumstances of the case,
                                                              whether the expression `made
                                                              available for the use of' trustee
                                                              ipso facto be understood to have
                                                              been deemed used or applied
                                                              for the benefit of the said
                                                              trustee, with or without the
                                                              actual use or application of the
                                                              property of the trust i.e. car for
                                                              personal benefit of the trustee in
                                                              view of section 13(2) of the
                                                              Income Tax Act 1961?"
                                                              3.       "In the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case,
                                                              whether the case of the assessee
                                                              falls within the ambit of the
                                                              provisions of clause (b) of
                                                              section 13(2) of the Income tax
                                                              Act 1961?"
                                                              4. "If the answers to above
                                                              questions at sr. No. (1) to (3)
                                                              are affirmative, whether the
                                                              denial of benefits of section 11
                                                              be restricted to such income of
                                                              the trust used or applied directly
                                                              or indirectly for the benefits of trustee

                                                                                                                          35
                                                             or, in alternative, the total income of
                                                             the trust is not entitled for the benefits
                                                             of section 11 of the Act."
      DELHI
     BENCHES
1.   IT(SS)A        No. Mr. Vijay Bansal,   S/Shri           1. "Whether the addition on Hon'ble         Vice-
     438/Del/2005    & Haryana.             1. Hari Om       account      of     undisclosed President (BZ)
     IT(SS)A.22/Del/06                         Maratha,JM.   investment on the investment
                                            2.T.S.Kapoor,    on the education of daughter of
                                            AM.              the assessee, in the block
                                                             period, found to have been
                                                             made has been correctly
                                                             sustained or it deserves to be
                                                             deleted in the given facts and
                                                             the circumstances of the case?

                                                             2. Whether an addition made
                                                             and sustained on account of
                                                             undisclosed investment found in
                                                             the construction of the property
                                                             deserves to be deleted or
                                                             sustained in the given facts and
                                                             circumstances of the case?

                                                             3. Whether any addition can
                                                             be made in the business income
                                                             of the assessee on the basis of
                                                             evidence gathered behind the
                                                             back of the assessee by opening
                                                             a floppy found and seized
                                                             during the search conducted u/s
                                                             132(1) of the Act or not?

                                                             4.    Whether the cash found
                                                             during search from a brief-case
                                                             stands explained, in the given
                                                             facts and circumstances of the
                                                             case or not?


                                                                                                                 36
     LUCKNOW
     BENCHES
1.   ITA No.             Ms Rajya Krishi   S/Shri               1."Whether" the CIT(A) has              Shri.Barathvja     Adjourned Sine
     141,142,143 &       Utpadan mandi     1. I.S.Verma,J.M.    jurisdiction to decide the              Sankar,Vice        die
     144/LKW/2009        Parishad,         2. N.K.Saini, A.M.   assessee's petition for stay or         President (as per
     C.O.No.06 to        Lucknow                                recovery of demand during the           dt.03.04.2013) of
     09/LKW/2009                                                pendency of assessee's appeal           the        Hon'ble
     A.Y.2001-02,2002-                                          furnished under section 246A of         President)
     03,2003-                                                   the Act?"
     04 &2006-07                                                2. "If the CIT(A) has jurisdiction
                                                                to decide the assessee's petition for
                                                                stay of recovery of demend , than
                                                                under which provisions of law the
                                                                CIT(A) will pass such an order i.e.
                                                                what will be the nature or status of
                                                                such order passed by the CIT(A)?"
                                                                3. "Whether, such order (supra)
                                                                passed by the CIT(A) is
                                                                appealable before the Tribunal
                                                                or not i.e. can such an order be
                                                                appealed against before the
                                                                Tribunal by way of an appeal
                                                                under section 253 of the Act, or
                                                                can be challenged only before the
                                                                Hon'ble High Court by way of
                                                                writ petition?"
                                                                4. "If such an order(Supra) is
                                                                found to be appealable before the
                                                                Tribunal, then can the Tribunal
                                                                entertain such an appeal against
                                                                such order without there being
                                                                appeal before it against the order
                                                                of CIT(A) in appeal against the
                                                                order of the Assessing Officer or
                                                                other orders appealable under
                                                                section 246A of the Act, as the
                                                                case may be, for the reason that the
                                                                CIT(A) has not preferred to
                                                                                                                                            37
                                                              decide the assessee's appeal
                                                              pending before him?"
2.   ITA No.            M/s Zazsons      S/Shri.              "Whether, on the facts and the      Shri. S. V.        Adjourned Sine
     219/LKW/2009 and   Exports Ltd.     1. I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as        Mehrotra, A.M.     die
     C.O.No.23/Lck/     Kanpur           2.N.K.Saini, A.M.    well as in law, the Revenue's       (As per order
     2009 A.Y.2005-06                                         ground Nos.3 to 6 be allowed or     dt.21.03.2013 of
                                                              not?"                               the Hon'ble
                                                                                                  President)
3.   SPNo.03/Lkw/2012   Smt.Uma Pandey, S/Shri.               SP No.03/Lkw/2012                  Shri.G.D.Agarwal,   Hearing is
     (A/o ITA                           Sunil Kumar                                              Hon'ble Vice-       awaited.
     188/Lkw/2010)                      Yadav,J.M.            "Whether, the stay earlier President (DZ and
     A.Y. 2007-08                       2.B.R.Jain,A.M.       granted by the Tribunal can be LZ)
     SP.No.04/Lkw/201   M/s.State Urban                       extended till disposal of the
     2                  Development                           appeal in a case where the
     (A/o ITA           Agency.                               appeal has been heard by the
     103/Lkw/2012)                                            Tribunal and is pending with
     A.Y. 2007-08                                             the Members for order?"
                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                                    J.M.
                                                              "Whether, on the peculiar facts,
                                                              circumstances of this case and
                                                              in law, there is any justification
                                                              in extending the stay of the
                                                              disputed demand that already
                                                              had run beyond 365 days or the
                                                              application so made by the
                                                              assessee is liable to be
                                                              rejected?"
                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                                    A.M.
                                                              SP No.04/Lkw/2012
                                                              "Whether, under the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case, the
                                                              outstanding demand can be
                                                              stayed outrightly or subject to
                                                              payment of part of demand in
                                                              instalments as proposed?"
                                                                    Sd/-                  Sd/-
                                                                   J.M.                  A.M
                                                                                                                                      38
4.   ITA No.        Smt. Uma Pandey S/Shri.           "Whether, under the facts and Shri.G.D.Agarwal, Hearing is
     188/Lkw/2010                   1.Sunil Kumar     circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Vice-        awaited.
     A.Y. 2007-08                   Yadav,J.M.        payments received by the          President (DZ/LZ)
                                    2.B.R.Jain,A.M.   assessee from M/s. Amit Poly
                                                      Yarn Ltd. (now known as M/s
                                                      Amitech Ind. Ltd) are receipt as
                                                      an advance against sales made
                                                      during      the      course    of
                                                      commercial transactions and
                                                      therefore provisions of section
                                                      2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act,
                                                      1961 are not attracted to these
                                                      payments or the aforesaid
                                                      payments are purely an
                                                      advance/loan made to the
                                                      assessee,       attracting    the
                                                      provisions of section 2(22)(e) of
                                                      the Act?
                                                       "Whether,      the     issue  of
                                                      allotment of shares for Rs.10
                                                      lakhs can be restored to the
                                                      Assessing Officer to investigate
                                                      the fact as to whether the
                                                      allotment of shares was
                                                      unilateral act of the company i.e
                                                      M/s. Amitech Ind. Ltd. or the
                                                      allotment was done at the instance
                                                      of the assessee in order determine
                                                      the applicability of provisions of
                                                      section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the
                                                      benefit accrued to the assessee on
                                                      allotment of shares or addition of
                                                      Rs.10 lakhs can be confirmed by
                                                      holding that benefit accrued to the
                                                      assessee on allotment of shares
                                                      attracts provisions of section
                                                      2(22)(e) of the Act on the basis of
                                                      material available on record?"
                                                                                                                     39
                                                                       Sd/-               Sd/-
                                                                      J.M.                A.M
     JABALPUR
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.             Shri. Anil          S/Shri              "Whether on the facts and the Hon'ble                        ----
     327/Jab/2009        Jaiswal, Jabalpur   1.I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as President,
     A25/10-2004                             2.B.R.Kaushik,      well as in law, the CIT(A) was I.T.A.T.
                                             A.M.                justified in deleting the addition
                                                                 made, while making assessment
                                                                 under section 153A read with
                                                                 section 143(3) of the Act on
                                                                 protective basis?"


     KOLKATA
     BENCH
1.   ITA Nos.            M/s Shyam Steel     S/Shri              "Whether in the facts and           Hon'ble Vice-     Not yet fixed
     65/Kol/2010, &      Industries Ltd.,    1.George Mathan,    circumstances of the case the       President
     655/Kol/2011.       Kolkata.            J.M.                power subsidy received by the       Chennai/Kolkata
     A.Y.2006-07 2007-                       2.C.D.Rao,A.M.      assessee is capital in nature or    Zone.
     08                                                          revenue in nature ?"
2.   ITA No.             M/s Ceean           S/Shri              "Whether or not, on the facts       Hon'ble Vice-     Not yet fixed
     1120/Kol/2012.      Commerce (P)        1.Promod Kumar,     and in the circumstances of the     President
     A.Y.2003-04.        Ltd., Kolkata.      A.M.                case and in accordance with the     Chennai/Kolkata
                                             2.Mahavir Singh,    low, the value of sale              Zone.
                                             J.M.                consideration to be adopted for
                                                                 computing capital gains in the
                                                                 hands of the assessee should be
                                                                 taken at Rs.32,84,300/- or at Rs.
                                                                 56,00,100/-? As the amendment
                                                                 in section 50C by Finance
                                                                 (N0.2) Act, 2009, w.e.f.
                                                                 1.10.2009, is to be treated as
                                                                 clarificatory in nature and
                                                                 retrospective in application".




                                                                                                                                       40
3.   ITA NO.        Sri Partha Mitra,   S/Shri.            1."Whether in view of the             Hon'ble Vice-     Not yet fixed
     848/Kol/2012   Kolkata.            1.Pramod Kumar,    provision of section 254(2A) of       President
                                        AM.                the Act as also the proviso           Chennai/Kolkata
                                        2.George Mathan,   thereto and the decision of the       Zone.
                                        JM.                Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
                                                           case of Chinnayappa Mudaliar
                                                           can the decision of the
                                                           Coordinate Bench of this
                                                           Tribunal in the case of
                                                           Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as also
                                                           the decision of the Hon';ble
                                                           Madhya Pradesh High Court in
                                                           the case of Estate of Late
                                                           Tukojirao Holkar - Vs.- CWT
                                                           be held to be applicable on the
                                                           facts of the case"
                                                           2."Whether in terms of the
                                                           provisions of Rule 19(2) of the
                                                           Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
                                                           Rules read with Rule 24 & 25
                                                           (Appellate Tribunal) Rules,
                                                           1963, an appeal can be
                                                           dismissed in limine without
                                                           addressing the merits of the
                                                           appeal     just    because    the
                                                           appellant does not appear"?
                                                           3."Whether the decision in the
                                                           case of Multiplan India Pvt.
                                                           Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) will
                                                           hold good in law as on i.e. even
                                                           after insertion of Rule 24 & 25
                                                           of Appellate Tribunal Rules,
                                                           1963.?
                                                           4."Whether it is open to the
                                                           Tribunal to dismiss an appeal,
                                                           without addressing itself to the
                                                           merits of issues in appeal, because
                                                                                                                                   41
                                                                one of the parties has not appeared
                                                                before the Tribunal"?
    PATNA BENCH
    (Circuit Bench,
    Ranchi)
1    MA No.                Shri. Ghasi Ram   S/Shri.            "Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble Zonal     Pending for
     11 (Pat) / 2007       Agarwal, Ranchi   1. B. R. Mittal,   the circumstances of the case, Vice President   hearing.
     arising out in                          J.M.               the     application   of    the (KZ)
     IT(SS)A No.                             2. B.K. Haldar,    department for recall of the
     45/Pat/05) A.Y. 86-                     A.M.               order of the Tribunal dt. 21st
     87 to 97-98                                                June, 2006 passed in IT(ss)A
                                                                No. 91(Pat)/05 to delete the
                                                                amount of Rs.45,823/- is to be
                                                                allowed as held by the learned
                                                                Accountant Member or is to be
                                                                rejected as held by the learned
                                                                Judicial Member."



2   Int. Tax Appeal        M/s Coalsesce     S/Shri.            "Whether,    in the facts and Hon'ble Zonal     Pending for
    Nos. 06 to             Investment (P)    1. B. R. Mittal,   circumstances of the case, the Vice-President   hearing.
    08/Pat/06              Ltd., Ranchi      J.M.               assessee was liable under the
    A.Ys.1997-98 to                          2. B.K. Haldar,    Interest Tax Act to pay interest tax
    1999-2000                                A.M.               on the gross interest received on
                                                                the loans and advances granted by it
                                                                during the impugned assessment
                                                                years."
    GUWAHATI
    BENCHES
1   ITA 47, 48 and         M/s Purbanchal    S/Shri.            1.    "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble        Not yet fixed.
    49(Gau)/2004           Safety Glassess   1.Hemant           circumstances of the case the President,
    A.Y.1996-97, 1997-     (P) Ltd.,         Sausarkar, J.M.    Ld. CIT(A) was justified in I.T.A.T.
    98 &                   Guwahati.         2.B.R.Kaushik,     deleting the additions made by
    1998-99                                  A.M.               the A.O. under section 69 of the
                                                                Act as undisclosed investment
                                                                amounting to Rs. 9,21,461/-,
                                                                Rs.2,20,990 and Rs.3,66,526/-
                                                                for the assessment years 1996-
                                                                97, 1997-98 and 1998-99
 


                                                                                                                          42
respectively on the ground that
the reassessments made by the
A.O. for the assessment years in
question were based on the
information received from
Bureau      of      Investigation
(Economic               Offence)
(Guwahati) and that the
information was based on
material    and     documentary
evidence to substantiate the
assessments?"
2.     "Whether on the facts and
in the circumstances of the case
the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is
required to be set aside with the
direction to decide the issue
afresh    after    giving    proper
opportunity to the assessee on the
relevant information received by
the A.O. on 25.02.2003 from the
Bureau of Investigation (Economic
Offence)?"
3. "Whether, on the facts and in
 the circumstances of the case, the
 Ld. Judicial Member was
 justified in holding that the
 issuance of notice u/s 148 cannot
 hold good and, therefore, the
assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.
147 of the Act is illegal,
 unjustified and void or the Ld.
 Accountant        Member    was
 justified in holding that the
 reopening of assessment and
 subsequent assessment made by
 the A.O. is justified?"
As per the order dt.16.04.2008
of the Hon'ble President
"All the three questions would

                                      43
                                                        be considered u/s 255(4) by the
                                                        President."
2.   ITA Nos. 96, 97 &  Brooke Bond   S/Shri.           1. "Whether, the learned Shri.Pramod        Adjourned Sine
     98(Gau)/2002       India Ltd.,   1.Hemant          CIT(A) has erred in law and in Kumar,A.M.   -die
     A.Y.1990-91, 1991- Calcutta.     Sausarkar, J.M.   facts in directing the A.O. to
     92, 1992-93                      2.B.R.Kaushik,    consider the income from
                                      A.M.              interest and dividend as
                                                        business income for the purpose
                                                        of eligible deduction u/s 32AB
                                                        of the Act, in view of the
                                                        decision in the case of CIT Vs.
                                                        Dinjoy Tea Estate (P) Ltd.
                                                        (1997) 224 ITR 263 (Gau), 271
                                                        ITR 123 (Cal), 273 ITR 470
                                                        (Mad) and 224 ITR 263
                                                        (Gau)?"
                                                        2. "Whether, this Bench of the
                                                        Tribunal working under the
                                                        jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
                                                        Guwahati High Court can allow
                                                        the claim of the assessee that
                                                        income from interest and
                                                        dividend is to be taken as
                                                        business income for the purpose
                                                        of eligible deduction u/s 32 AB
                                                        of the Act in view of the
                                                        decisions in the cases of (i)
                                                        Britania Industries Ltd. Vs.
                                                        JCIT (2004) 271 ITR 123 (Cal)
                                                        and (ii) DCIT Vs.United
                                                        Nilgiris    Tea    Estate    Co.
                                                        Ltd.(2005) 273 ITR 470
                                                        (Mad)?"
                                                        3. "Whether, on the facts and
                                                        circumstances of the case the
                                                        claim of expenditure of
                                                        Rs.94,363/- and Rs.1,26,718/-
                                                        attributable to the foreign tour
                                                        of Mrs. R. Sen, wife of the
                                                                                                                     44
                                                                  director, Mr. D. Sen, was not
                                                                  wholly and exclusively for the
                                                                  purpose of business?"
                                                                  4. "Whether, in view of change
                                                                  of stand by the assessee
                                                                  regarding nature and purpose of
                                                                  expenditure taken before the
                                                                  Ld.CIT(A) for the first time the
                                                                  issue was required to be
                                                                  restored to the A.O. for fresh
                                                                  adjudication after enquiring into
                                                                  the claim of the assessee?"

3.   ITA No.              Shri. Shyam         S/Shri.             (1) "Whether, on the basis of Hon'ble                         Not yet fixed.
     09/Gau/2006          Sunder Malpani,     Hemant Sausarkar,   facts and in the circumstances President,
     A.Y.2002-2003        Jorhat              J.M.                of the case, the assessee is I.T.A.T.
                                              B.R.Kaushik,        entitled to deduction u/s 80IB?"
                                              A.M.                (2) "Whether, in view of the
                                                                  decision in the case of CIT Vs
                                                                  Down Town Hospital Ltd. 251
                                                                  ITR 683 (Gau), the issue was
                                                                  required to be restored to the
                                                                  learned CIT(A) for fresh
                                                                  adjudication after ascertaining
                                                                  whether all the conditions u/s
                                                                  80 IB are fulfilled?"
4.   ITA 161/Gau/2003     M/s 3R,             S/Shri              1. "Whether in the facts and Shri.                            Not yet fixed
     Block period f       Gauwahati.          1. Hement           circumstances of these cases the D.K.Tyagi,J.M.
     1989-90 to 1998-99                       Sausarkar, J.M.     block     assessments    can     be
     & 1999-2000.                             2. B.R.Kaushik,     considered invalid?"
                                              A.M.                2. "Whether, in the facts and
                                                                  circumstances of these cases it can
     ITA 162/Gau/2004     M/s Panbazar
                                                                  be held that the A.O. did not bring
     Block period 1989-   Diagnostic                              on record the prima facie evidence for
     90 to 1998-99 &      Centre, Guwahati.                       invoking jurisdiction and initiation of
     1999-2000                                                    proceedings u/s 158 BD of the Act?"       ------ do -------




                                                                                                                                                 45
     BANGALORE
     BENCH
1.   MP.No            Shri Mahesh       S/Shri/Smt.          1."Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble   Vice- Fixed on
     41/Bang/2010     Hasmukh Boriya,   1.P.Madhavi Devi,   the circumstances of the case, President (BZ)    28/06/2013
     (ITA 773/B/10)                        J.M.             there is any mistake apparent
                                        2. A.Mohan          from record        rectifiable u/s
                                          Alankamony,       254(2) of the IT Act, when the
                                          A.M.              Tribunal       adjudicated     the
                                                            Revenue's appeal on the sole
                                                            ground of limitation in favor of
                                                            the Revenue, but not remitted
                                                            back the issue to CIT(A) for
                                                            adjudication on merits when
                                                            such        an       issue      of
                                                            remission/merits was not before
                                                            the Tribunal either by a prayer
                                                            submission or cross objection
                                                            by the Assessee/AR other than
                                                            the only argument to defend his
                                                            ground on technicality?"
                                                            2."Whether, the inclusion of a
                                                            copy of a favourable judgment
                                                            to the assessee on the issue of
                                                            merits in the paper book
                                                            produced before the ITAT
                                                            would amount to be a ground or
                                                            submission        enabling     the
                                                            assessee     to     invoke     the
                                                            rectification jurisdiction of the
                                                            Tribunal, when during the
                                                            course of the hearing there were
                                                            no      such     arguments      or
                                                            submission on merits/remission
                                                            before the Tribunal by the
                                                            Assessee/AR?"



                                                                                                                          46
     CHANDIGARH
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.            Shri . R.K.Garg     S/Shri .             Per J.M.                          Hon'ble Vice   Adjourned
     142/CHD/1999                           1.M.A.Bakshi, VP     1. "Whether, on the facts and in President       sine-die
     A.Y.97-98                              2. N.K.Saini. A.M.   the circumstances of this case, (Chandigarh)
     ITA 550, 489, 586,                                          the    guarantee    commission
     587 & 588/CHD/99                                            received by the assessees is a
     A.Y.87-88, 90-91,                                           revenue receipt or a capital
     98-99, 1999-2000 &                                          receipt?"
     2000-2001                                                   2. "Whether, the decision of the
                                                                 Tribunal in assessee's own case
                                                                 for the assessment year 88-89 to
                                                                 the effect that the guarantee
                                                                 commission is a revenue receipt
     ITA No.             Smt. Sunaina                            is inapplicable in view the
     143/CHD/1999        Garg                                    decision of the Hon'ble Madras
     A.Y.97-98                                                   High Court in the case of CIT v.
     ITA Nos. 589, 590                                           Pondicherry            Industrial
     & 591/CHD/2002                                              Promotion Development &
     A.Y. 1998-99,                                               Investment Corporation Ltd.
     1999-2000,                                                  (supra), and the decision of
      2000-2001                                                  Delhi High Court in the case of
                                                                 Suessen Textile Bearings Ltd.
     ITA 503/CHD/2002    Shri . R.K.Garg,                        etc. v. Union of India etc.
     A.Y. 1997-98        & Sons(HUF)                             (supra)?"
                                                                 3. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                 the circumstances of the case,
                                                                 the additional ground raised by
                                                                 the revenue for the assessment
                                                                 year 90-91 only deserves to be
                                                                 admitted and matter for all the
                                                                 assessment years remitted to the
                                                                 CIT(A)      for    giving     an
                                                                 opportunity to the AO to
                                                                 distinguish the two High Courts cases,
                                                                 referred to above notwithstanding the
                                                                 fact that both the Members of the
                                                                 Bench have decided the issue relating
                                                                                                                              47
                                                           to assessability of the guarantee
                                                           commission on merits?"
                                                           Per A.M.
                                                           1. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                           the circumstances of the case, it
                                                           could be held that the guarantee
                                                           commission received by the
                                                           assessees against their personal
                                                           assets was a capital receipt?"
                                                           2. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                           the circumstances of the case
                                                           and also in law, the Ld. CIT(A)
                                                           should have provided and
                                                           opportunity of being heard to
                                                           the Assessing Officer when
                                                           there was a specific direction by
                                                           the Tribunal to do so, before
                                                           arriving at a conclusion on the
                                                           basis of judgment of Hon'ble
                                                           Delhi High Court in the case of
                                                           Suessen Textile bearing Ltd.
                                                           and others V Union of India,
                                                           CC2 JJX 0082 and Hon'ble
                                                            Madras High Court in the case
                                                           of CIT V. Pondicherry Indl
                                                           Promotion Development and
                                                           Investment Corp. Ltd. (2000)
                                                           245 ITR 859, that the amount
                                                           received by assessees
                                                           was a capital receipt.
     AMRITSAR
     BENCH
1.   IT(SS)A No.       Sh.Vinod Goel      S/Shri            Shri H.S.Sidhu.                Zonal Vice      Pending for
     14/ASR/2005.                         1. H.S. Sidhu,   1.       "Whether, on the facts President(CZ)   fixation
                                          J.M.             and in the circumstances of
     IT(SS)A           M/s Sidhant        2.Mehar          present case, the issues in the
     No.13/ASR/2005.   Deposits &         Singh,A.M.       present appeals are covered by
                       Advances(P) Ltd.                    the decision of the Hon'ble
     IT(SS)A           M/s Trimurti                        Supreme Court in the case of
                                                                                                                         48
No.12/ASR/2005   Deposits &          Manish Maheshwary Vs. ACIT
                 Advances (P) Ltd.   (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) and
                                     the decision of the Hon'ble
                                     jurisdictional High Court in
                                     Income tax Appeal No.519 of
                                     2009 decided on 20-7-2010 in
                                     the case of CIT-I, Ludhiana Vs.
                                     Mridula Prop. Dhruv fabics,
                                     Ludhiana?"
                                     2.        "Whether, on the facts
                                     and in the circumstances of the
                                     present case, non-production of
                                     records by the revenue in spite
                                     of various opportunities given
                                     to them, benefit should go to the
                                     revenue or the asessee?"
                                     3.        "Whether, on the facts
                                     and in the circumstances of the
                                     present case, it is mandatory a
                                     pre-requisite       that      the
                                     satisfaction to be recorded in
                                     the cases of persons searched
                                     before issuance of notice under
                                     section 158 BD of the Income
                                     tax Act. 1961 to the assesse i.e.
                                     other person?"
                                         Shri. Mehar Singh,AM.
                                     1.               "Whether on the
                                     facts and on law, valid Block
                                     Assessments can be cancelled,
                                     on the ground of assumed non-
                                     production of record indicating
                                     recording of satisfaction u/s
                                     158BD, in a case where such
                                     satisfaction is duly evidenced by
                                     documents available in the paper
                                     book filed by the Deptt. and
                                     reproduced verbatim in the order
                                     dated 06.12.2006 passed by the
                                                                         49
                                                          Bench and subsequent M.A.dated
                                                          21.01.2009, dismissed by the
                                                          Bench, without even considering
                                                          such satisfaction?'
                                                          2.       " Whether, on the facts
                                                          and on law Block Assessments
                                                          can be cancelled by applying
                                                          the decision of jurisdictional
                                                          High Court, relied upon by the
                                                          assessee, which lays down the
                                                          law that satisfaction under
                                                          section 158BD be recorded
                                                          before the conclusion of the
                                                          Block     Assessments      under
                                                          section 158BC of the Act, in the
                                                          absence of vital details of dates
                                                          of completion of such block
                                                          assessment being determinative
                                                          factor, in determining the
                                                          applicability of the said
                                                          decision, where the parties to
                                                          the disputes failed to furnish
                                                          such dates?"
     JAIPUR BENCH
1.   ITA No.        M/s. Mahaveer      S/Shri             Shri R.K. Gupta, JM.                Hon'ble Vice   Pending
     937/Jp/2011    Exports, Jaipur.   1.R.K.Gupta, JM.   1. "Whether, in the facts and       President
                                       2.Sanjay           circumstance, the addition of       (Ahmedabad
                                       Arora,A.M.         Rs.3,58,455/- made by one of        Zone)
                                                          the partners S mt.Kanta
                                                          Nowlkha is liable to be deleted
                                                          or to be confirmed?"
                                                          2. "Whether, in the facts and
                                                          circumstances, the addition of
                                                          Rs. 1,00,000/- each in the name
                                                          of Shri Nem Chand Nowalkha
                                                          and Shri Pankaj Ghiya of the
                                                          assessee firm made as capital
                                                          contribution is liable to be
                                                          deleted or liable to be set aside
                                                                                                                       50
to the file of the Assessing
Officer?"
3. "Whether, in view of the
decision        of       Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court in
case of Kewal Krishan &
Partners, 18 DTR 121 (Raj.) the
entire    capital   contribution
made/contributed      prior   to
commencencement of business
in liable to be deleted or to be
confirmed in part and partly to
be set aside to the file of
Assessing Officer ?"

Shri Sanjay Arora,AM.
1. "Whether, section 68 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 can be
invoked where the assessee fails
to satisfactorily explain the
nature and source of a case
credit found recorded by him in
his books of account for the
relevant year, or is the Revenue
also required to establish that
the assessee had in existence a
source of income before the
date on which such cash credit
was recorded, i.e., in order to
treat the same as unexplained
u/s. 68?"

2. "Whether, the addition of the
impugned sums as unexplained
credits u/s.68 can be deleted on
the sole ground that the assessee
had no source of income prior
to the date on which the same
were found recorded in the
                                    51
assessee's books of account,
notwithstanding the fact that it
has completely failed to
discharge the burden of
satisfactorily explaining the
nature and source thereof?"
3. "Whether, the view that a
cash credit recorded in the
books of account of a
partnership firm ostensibly as
capital contributed by a partner
cannot       be      treated     as
unexplained u/s.68 in the hands
of the firm even if the
assesseefirm          fails      to
satisfactorily explain the nature
and source thereof, and more
particularly if its fails to adduce
evidence to establish that the
alleged capital was actually
contributed by the partner, is
sustainable in law in view of the
decision by the Hon'ble
jurisdictional high court in CIT
v.     Kishorilal       Santoshilal
(1995)216 ITR 9 (Raj.)?"
4.1 "Whether, can capital be
contributed by a partner to a
partnership-firm prior to the
coming into existence of the
said firm? In any case, whether
the claim of capital contribution
by way of transfer of goods on
June 1,2006 can be accepted in
view of the fact that the
assessee-firm itself came into
existence     only       on    July
11,2006?"
"Is the remand in the case of
                                      52
                                                             two cash credits of Rs. 1 lac
                                                             each in the name of two
                                                             partners justified under the facts
                                                             and circumstances of the case,
                                                             even as contemplated by the
                                                             Hon,ble jurisdictional high
                                                             court in the case of Rajshree
                                                             Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CIT
                                                             (2002) 256 ITR 331 (Raj.)?"
2.   ITA No.363 &      M/s Escorts Heart   S/Shri            Shri R.K.Gupta,J.M.                Hon'ble Vice    Adjourned
     326/Jp/2011       Institute &         1. R.K.Gupta,     1.     Whether in the facts and President (Delhi   sine-die.
     A.Y.2008-09.      Research               JM.            circumstances of the case, the Zone)
                       Centre,Jaipur.      2. SanjayArora,   provisions of section 194J are
     ITA               Escort Heart           AM.            applicable on the payments
     No.1123/Jp/2011   Super Speciality                      made to blood bank ?"
     A.Y.2009-10.      Hospital                              2.      Whether in the facts and
                       Ltd.,Jaipur.                          circumstances of the case, the
                                                             provisions of section 192 or
                                                             section 194J are applicable in
                                                             case of retainer doctors ?
                                                             3.      Whether in the facts and
                                                             circumstances of the case, on
                                                             the mark up/profits earned by
                                                             Fortis Health World Ltd.
                                                             (FHWL) on sale of medicines to
                                                             the assessee is a commission
                                                             chargeable to tax under section
                                                             194H or is a sale on which
                                                             provisions of section194H are
                                                             not applicable?
                                                             4.      Whether in the facts and
                                                             circumstances of the case, on
                                                             the    mark      up/profits    the
                                                             provisions of section 194C can
                                                             be invoked by the Tribunal
                                                             where neither this is a case of
                                                             department nor of the assessee ?
                                                                 Shri Sanjay Arora, AM.
                                                             1.1 Whether the payments to
                                                                                                                            53
the blood banks for carrying out
investigation procedures, are, in
the facts and circumstances of
the case, made by the assessee-
hospital or by its patients?
1.2 Whether, while deciding an
issue under appeal, the tribunal
required      to     apply      its
independent mind thereon,
without being influenced by the
decision by the first appellate
authority for a subsequent year,
particularly when the same was
not pressed during hearing and,
accordingly, the parties not
heard thereon?
2. I am in agreement with the
Question No. 2 as proposed by
my ld. Brother, JM.
3.1       Whether, can on the
admitted set of facts brought on
record by the parties, the
inferential finding/s by the
Appellate Tribunal differ from
that of either party before it, or
is it to necessarily match
therewith? Further, is not the
tribunal duty bound to, in
deciding an issue before it,
apply the law as applicable to
the facts found by it, including
such inferential finding/s?
3.2     Whether, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
supply of medicines by Fortis
Health World Ltd.(FHWL) to the
assessee-company for its IPD
Pharmacy,    constitutes   an
independent business being

                                      54
                                                                carried on by FHWL, or is the
                                                                said supply only the result of
                                                                the work carried out by its
                                                                relevant manpower, whose
                                                                services      stand       already
                                                                contracted to the assessee
                                                                company and subject to tax
                                                                deduction u/s. 194C of the Act?
     JODHPUR
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.362(JU)/10   Smt. Supriya       S/Shri              "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble            Vice- Adjourned
                         Kanwar, Jodhpur.   1. JoginderSingh,   circumstances of the case, solitary President       sine-die
                                               J.M.             transaction of purchase and sale of (Mumbai Zone)
                                            2. K.G.Bansal,      the same agricultural land with
                                               A.M.             standing crops situated beyond the
                                                                prescribed      municipal limits,
                                                                amounts to adventure in the nature
                                                                of trade?"
                                                                                    Sd/-
                                                                           (Joginder Singh,JM)
                                                                "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                the circumstances of the case
                                                                and sale of five pieces of
                                                                agricultural land with standing
                                                                crop, by way of separate
                                                                conveyance deeds, beyond the
                                                                prescribed distance from any
                                                                municipal council, amount to
                                                                transactions on capital account
                                                                or adventure in the nature of
                                                                trade?"
                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                                 (K.G.Bansal)
                                                                                     A.M




                                                                                                                                55
     RAJKOT BENCH
1.   MA. Nos. 61 to      Shambhubhai      S/Shri               "Whether on the facts and              Hon'ble    Vice
     66/Rjt/2010(A.O. of Mahadev Ahir,    1.T.K.Sharma, JM.    circumstances of the case, all the     President,      Adjourned
     ITA Nos. 637 to     Gandhidham.      2.D.K.Srivastava,    six Miscellaneous Appelications        (Ahmedabad      sine-die.
     639 & 707 to                         AM.                  filed by the Revenue should be         Zone)
     709/Rjt/2010)                                             dismissed or be allowed?"

2.   ITA NO.            M/s Meridian      S/Shri               "Whether      on the facts and         Hon'ble    Vice Fixed on
     01/Rjt/2012        Impex,Jamnager.   1.T.K.Sharma, JM.    circumstances of the case, the ld.     President,      19/06/2013
                                          2. D.K. Srivastava   CIT(A) is correct in confirming the    (Ahmedabad
                                          AM.                  penalty of Rs. 7,28,621/- levied by    Zone)
                                                               the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the
                                                               Income Tax Act, 1961 OR it
                                                               should be cancelled as proposed by
                                                               Judicial Member?"
                                                                                    Sd/-
                                                                            (T.K.Sharma,JM.)

                                                               1."Whether a well-reasoned order
                                                               passed by the CIT(A) can be
                                                               reversed or otherwise interfered
                                                               with by this Tribunal without
                                                               recording reasons for disagreeing
                                                               with it.
                                                               2. "Whether the case of the
                                                               assessee, on the facts stated in the
                                                               Dissenting Note of the AM, is
                                                               covered by Explanation 1 to
                                                               section 271(1) (C)."

                                                                                Sd/-
                                                                       (D.K.Srivastava,AM.)




                                                                                                                                   56
                                 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

                              LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.06.2013.

Sr.   Appeal No.              Name of the         Bench                   Points involved                            To Whom            Remarks
No                            Assessee                                                                               assigned
      MUMBAI BENCHES
1.    ITA No.                 M/s Kaira Can       S/Shri.                 Reference dt. 25.11.2008 u/s 255(4) of the Shri I.P. Bansal, Heard on
      6987/Mum/2003           Company Ltd.        1. Sunil Kumar Yadav,   Income Tax Act made afresh by S/Shri. JM.                    13/06/2013
      ITA No. 5280 &                              J.M.                    Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.M. and V.K.
      5281/Mum/2004                               2. V.K.Gupta, A.M.      Gupta, A.M. is as under.
      A.Y. 1996-97 to 1998-                                               1. "Whether the impugned transactions of
      99                                                                  leasing out of assets to the assessee is a lease
                                                                          transaction or a financial lease?
                                                                          2. "Whether the assessee can be held to be
                                                                          the owner of the asset acquired under the
                                                                          above transactions and is entitled for
                                                                          depreciation over the said assets or assessee
                                                                          being a lessee is entitled to claim the lease
                                                                          rent paid to the lessor as a revenue
                                                                          expenditure?"
      GUWAHATI BENCH
1.    ITA No. 25/Gau/2005     M/s Baid            S/Shri.                 "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri.Pramod                 Heard on
      A.Y.1996-97             Commercial          1.Hemant Sausarkar,     circumstances of the case the transport Kumar,A.M.            04.04.2012
                              Enterprises Ltd.,   J.M.                    subsidy is to be treated as capital in nature in
                              Guwahati.           2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.     view of decisions in the following cases-
                                                                          i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR 847                     Heard on
2.    ITA No. 20/Gau/2005     M/s Shiva Sakti                             (Gau)                                                         04.04.2012
      A.Y.2001-2002           Floor Mills (P)                             ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And
                              Ltd., Tinsukia                              Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC)
      C.O.No.02/Gau/2005                                                  iii) DCIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003)
                                                                          263 ITR 357 (Gau)
                                                                                                                                   57
                           M/s Virgo                            iv) CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products Ltd. 251                             Heard on
3.   ITA No.165/Gau/2004   Cements Ltd.,                        ITR 427(SC) and                                                        03.04.2012
     A.Y.2001-2002         Gauwahati.                           v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT 238
                                                                ITR 354(Cal).
     JAIPUR BENCH
1.   ITA No. 110/JP/2012   Smt. Asha          S/Shri            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the     Shri                   Heard on
                           Mandowra,Jaipur.   1.R.K.Gupra,      present case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is liable   G.D.Agarwal,         14.05.2013
                                                JM.             to be confirmed or liable to be restored to his   Vice-
                                              2.Sanjay Arora,   file to pass a fresh order ?                      President(DZ)
                                                AM.

2.   MA. No. 11/JP/2011    Shri Deepak        S/Shri            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the     Shri                   Heard on
     (A.O.of ITA No.       Delela,Jaipur.     1.R.K.Gupta,      present case, the order of Tribunal in Misc.      G.D.Agarwal,         14.05.2013
     13/JP/10)                                  JM.             Application No.11/JP/2011 arising out of the      Vice-
                                              2.Sanjay Arora,   order of the Tribunal in ITA No.13/JP/2010        President(DZ)
                                                AM.             relating to Assessment Year 2006-07 is liable
                                                                to be allowed by recalling the order of the
                                                                Tribunal or to be dismissed.?




                                                                                                                                  58

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - About Us

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions