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
|
