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: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT Audit :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: empanelment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment
 
 
« 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
March, 21st 2013
                       INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
            STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.02.2013


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


     MUMBAI BENCH
1.   ITA No.            M/s Kaira Can   S/Shri.          Reference dt. 25.11.2008 u/s Hon'ble Zonal     Adjourned Sine
     6987/Mum/2003      Company Ltd.    1. Sunil Kumar   255(4) of the Income Tax Act Vice-President    die
     ITA No. 5280 &                     Yadav, J.M.      made afresh by S/Shri. Sunil
     5281/Mum/2004                      2. V.K.Gupta,    Kumar Yadav, J.M. and V.K.
     A.Y. 1996-97 to                    A.M.             Gupta, A.M. is as under.
     1998-99
                                                         "1. Whether the impugned
                                                         transactions of 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?"







                                                                                                                         1
2.   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)   14.03.2013
     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?"

3.   ITA 5229/M/2004     M/s. Standard    S/Shri.             "Whether on the facts and Shri.                 After the
     & 5303/M/2004       Chartered Bank   1.R.S.Padvekar,J.   circumstances of the case R.S.Syal,A.M.         Disposal of MA
     A.Y. 1996-97                         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?"


     PUNE BENCH
1.   ITA             No. M/s Audyogik     S/Shri.             1.    "In    the   facts     and Zonal Vice- Ajd. Sine-die
     1712/PN/2007,       Shikshan Mandal, 1. Mukul Shrawat,   circumstances of the case, President(MZ)
     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
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
     LUCKNOW
     BENCHES
1.   ITA No.             Ms Rajya Krishi   S/Shri               1."Whether" the CIT(A) has      Hon'ble Zonal Adjourned Sine
     141,142,143 &       Utpadan mandi     1. I.S.Verma,J.M.    jurisdiction to decide the      Vice-President    die
     144/LKW/2009        Parishad,         2. N.K.Saini, A.M.   assessee's petition for stay or (As per order
     C.O.No.06 to        Lucknow                                recovery of demand during the   dt.20.09.2011 of
     09/LKW/2009                                                pendency of assessee's appeal   the       Hon'ble
     A.Y.2001-02,2002-                                          furnished under section 246A of President) Shri
     03,2003-                                                   the Act?"                       H.L.Karwa      as
     04 &2006-07                                                                                Zonal       Vice-
                                                                2. "If the CIT(A) has President to hear
                                                                jurisdiction to decide the as          a    Third
                                                                assessee's petition for stay of Member."
                                                                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
                                                                                                                               4
                                                              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 Zonal Vice-              Adjourned Sine
     219/LKW/2009 and   Exports Ltd.     1. I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as President                  die
     C.O.No.23/Lck/     Kanpur           2.N.K.Saini, A.M.    well as in law, the Revenue's
     2009 A.Y.2005-06                                         ground Nos.3 to 6 be allowed or
                                                              not?"
3.   SPNo.03/Lkw/2012   Smt.Uma Pandey, S/Shri.               SP No.03/Lkw/2012                  Hon'ble              Hearing is
     (A/o ITA                           Sunil Kumar                                              President,I.T.A.T.   awaited.
     188/Lkw/2010)                      Yadav,J.M.            "Whether, the stay earlier
     A.Y. 2007-08                       2.B.R.Jain,A.M.       granted by the Tribunal can be
     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
                                                                                                                                       5
                                                      payment of part of demand in
                                                      instalments as proposed?"
                                                            Sd/-                   Sd/-
                                                           J.M.                   A.M
4.   ITA No.        Smt. Uma Pandey S/Shri.           "Whether, under the facts and Shri.G.D.Agarwal    Hearing is
     188/Lkw/2010                   1.Sunil Kumra     circumstances of the case, the , Hon'ble Vice-   awaited.
     A.Y. 2007-08                   Yadav,J.M.        payments received by the President (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
                                                                                                                     6
                                                                    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
     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
      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 ?"
     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."
                                                                                                                                         7
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
    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
                                                                                                                               8
                                                        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
                                                        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.
                                                                                                                     9
(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
Guawahati 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
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?"
                                    10
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
     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.   67/Mds/2012          Shri C.             S/Shri              "Whether keeping in view the Dr. O. K.            Fixed on
                          Srikanth,Chennai.   1.N.S.Saini,A.M.    findings of the CIT(A), there Narayanan, Vice     18/02/2013
                          & M/s Atlus         2.V.Durga Rao,      was any mistake apparent from President, (CZ).
                          Securities          J.M.                the records rectifiable u/s
                          Trading (P) Ltd.                        254(2) of the Act in the order
                                                                  dated 10.2.2012 passed by the
                                                                  Tribunal wherein the Tribunal
                                                                  proceeded on the assumption
                                                                  that the facts of the case as
                                                                  brought out by the Assessing
                                                                                                                                     11
                                                            Officer in the assessment order
                                                            were undisputed facts of the case ?
                                                                              Sd/-
                                                                             A.M.
                                                            "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                            the circumstances of the case,
                                                            the Miscellaneous Applications filed
                                                            by the assesses do come within the
                                                            purview of Section 254(2) of the
                                                            Income Tax Act, 1961 or not?"
                                                                                Sd/-
                                                                               J.M.
     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)    15/03/2013
     (ITA 773/B/10)                     J.M.                there is any mistake apparent
                                        2. A.Mohan          from record       rectifiable u/s
                                        Alankamony A.M.     254(2) of the IT Act, when the
                                                            Tribunal      adjudicated     the
                                                            Revenue's appeal on the sole
                                                            ground of limitation in favour
                                                            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 paperbook
                                                            produced before the ITAT
                                                            would amount to be a ground or

                                                                                                                          12
                                                                 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?"
     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-dia
     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
     ITA No.             Smt. Sunaina                            commission is a revenue receipt
     143/CHD/1999        Garg                                    is inapplicable in view the
     A.Y.97-98                                                   decision of the Hon'ble Madras
     ITA Nos. 589, 590                                           High Court in the case of CIT v.
     & 591/CHD/2002                                              Pondicherry            Industrial
     A.Y. 1998-99,                                               Promotion Development &
     1999-2000,                                                  Investment Corporation Ltd.
      2000-2001                                                  (supra), and the decision of
                                                                 Delhi High Court in the case of
     ITA 503/CHD/2002    Shri . R.K.Garg,                        Suessen Textile Bearings Ltd.
     A.Y. 1997-98        & Sons(HUF)                             etc. v. Union of India etc.
                                                                 (supra)?"

                                                                 3. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                 the circumstances of the case,
                                                                 the additional ground raised by
                                                                 the revenue for the assessment
                                                                                                                              13
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
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
                                    14
                                                            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
                                                            Supreme Court in the case of
     IT(SS)A           M/s Trimurti                         Manish Maheshwary Vs. ACIT
     No.12/ASR/2005    Deposits &                           (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) and
                       Advances (P) Ltd.                    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.
                                                                                                                           15
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
factor, in determining the
applicability of the said
decision, where the parties to
the disputes failed to furnish
such dates?"




                                    16
     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       (Chandigarh
                                       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
                                                          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
                                                                                                                       17
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
evidence to establish that the
alleged capital was actually
contributed by the partner, is
                                      18
                                                           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       Pending
     326/Jp/2011       Institute &       1. R.K.Gupta,     1.     Whether in the facts and President (Delhi
     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
                       Ltd.,Jaipur.                        2.     Whether in the facts and
                                                           circumstances of the case, the
                                                           provisions of section 192 or
                                                                                                                        19
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
                                     20
                                                      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
                                                      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 No.       Smt. Asha        S/Shri            Whether in the facts and             Shri            Pending
     110/JP/2012   Mandowra,Jaipur. 1.R.K.Gupra,      circumstances of the present         G.D.Agarwal,
                                      JM.             case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is     Vice-
                                    2.Sanjai Arora,   liable to be confirmed or liable     President(DZ)
                                      AM.             to be restored to his file to pass
                                                      a fresh order ?

                                                                                                                     21
4.   MA. No.             Shri Deepak        S/Shri              Whether in the facts and            Shri            Pending
     11/JP/2011          Delela,Jaipur.     1.R.K.Gupta,        circumstances of the present        G.D.Agarwal,
     (A.O.of ITA No.                          JM.               case, the order of Tribunal in      Vice-
     13/JP/10)                              2.Sanjai Arora,     Misc.                Application    President(DZ)
                                              AM.               No.11/JP/2011 arising out of
                                                                the order of the Tribunal in ITA
                                                                No.13/JP/2010      relating    to
                                                                Assessment Year 2006-07 is
                                                                liable to be allowed by recalling
                                                                the order of the Tribunal or to
                                                                be dismissed.?

     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, President             sine-dia
                                               J.M.             solitary transaction of purchase (Mumbai Zone)
                                            2. K.G.Bansal,      and sale of the same
                                               A.M.             agricultural land with standing
                                                                crops situated beyond the
                                                                prescribed     municipal limits,
                                                                amounts to adventure in the
                                                                nature of trade?"
                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                              (Joginder Singh)
                                                                                    J.M.
                                                                "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.
                                                                                                                              22
     RAJKOT BENCH
1.   ITA                Atul Auto         S/Shri              "Whether on the facts and Hon'ble              Vice
     No.921/Rjt/2010    Ltd.Rajkot.       1.T.K.Sharma,       circumstances of the case, the President,
                                          J.M.                ld.CIT(A) is justified in directing (Ahmedabad
                                          2.D.K.Srivastava,   the AO to grant the exemption Zone)
                                          A.M.                of Rs.22,96,155/- u/s.10(34) of
                                                              the I.T.Act, 1961 in respect of
                                                              dividend received by the
                                                              assessee in respect of shares
                                                              held in subsidiary company and
                                                              reflected in the balance-sheet
                                                              under the head investments.
                                                                               Sd/-
                                                                        (T.K.Sharma, JM)
                                                              "whether unreported judgment,
                                                              which was never cited by the
                                                              parties not otherwise brought to
                                                              the notice of the Bench not to
                                                              the notice of the Member
                                                              proposing the order, can be
                                                              used by another Member for
                                                              passing dissenting order without
                                                              giving any opportunity in this
                                                              behalf to the parties?
                                                                               Sd/-
                                                                         (D.K.Srivastava, AM)
2.   ITA No.            Shri Shirish M.   S/Shri              Whether on the facts and              Hon'ble    Vice
     342/Rjt/2012       Ravani,           1.T.K.Sharma, JM.   circumstances of the case, the ld.    President,
                        Jamnagar.         2.D.K.Srivastava,   CIT(A) is justified in deleting the   (Ahmedabad
                                          AM.                 diaallowance of interest of Rs.       Zone)
                                                              3,22,091/- which was paid on
                                                              loans taken from family members
                                                              u/s 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act,
                                                              1961?"

3.   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,
     ITA Nos. 637 to     Gandhidham.      2.D.K.Srivastava,   six Miscellaneous Appelications       (Ahmedabad
     639 & 707 to                         AM.                 filed by the Revenue should be        Zone)
                                                              dismissed or be allowed?"
     709/Rjt/2010)

                                                                                                                      23
                               INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

                            LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.02.2013.

Sr.   Appeal No.            Name of the         Bench                   Points involved                              To Whom             Remarks
No                          Assessee                                                                                 assigned
      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-
                                                                                                                                         Heard on
2.    ITA No. 20/Gau/2005   M/s Shiva Sakti                             i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR 847                        04.04.2012
      A.Y.2001-2002         Floor Mills (P)                             (Gau)
                            Ltd., Tinsukia                              ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And
      C.O.No.02/Gau/2005                                                Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC)
                                                                        iii) DCIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003)
                            M/s Virgo                                   263 ITR 357 (Gau)                                                Heard on
3.    ITA No.165/Gau/2004   Cements Ltd.,                               iv) CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products Ltd. 251                       03.04.2012
      A.Y.2001-2002         Gauwahati.                                  ITR 427(SC) and
                                                                        v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT
                                                                        238 ITR 354(Cal).

      KOLKATA BENCH
1.    ITA 2004/Kol/09,      M/s. UAL            S/Shri                Whether or not in the facts and                Dr.                  Heard on
      1668, 1669/Kol/2011   Industries Ltd.,    1.Pramod Kumar, A.M. circumstances of the case `Fly Ash Handling     O.K.Narayanm        17.12.2012
                            Kolkata             2.George Mathan, J.M. System' is eligible to be treated as `Air      Zonal Vice
                                                                      Pollution Control Equipment' for the purpose   President
                                                                      of granting depreciation at 100%?"




                                                                                                                                    24
     COCHIN BENCH
1.   ITA 720/Coch/2010   Al-Ameen            S/Shri.                 "Whether levy of penalty under section Hon'ble Vice                    Heard on
     A.Y.2005-06 &       Educational Trust   1.N.Vijaykumaran,       271D is justified?"                              President(BZ).        14.12.2012
     ITA 721/Coch/2010                       J.M.                                    Sd/-
     A.Y.2006-07                             2.Sanjay Arora,A.M.                    J.M.
                                                                     1"Whether, on facts, and in the
                                                                     circumstances of the case, penalty u/s.271D
                                                                     to the extent of Rs.79.40 lacs and Rs.15.25
                                                                     lacs for the two consecutive years, is liable to
                                                                     be levied, or not?

                                                                     2."Whether, on facts and in the
                                                                     circumstances of the case, penalty levied
                                                                     u/s.271D to the extent of Rs.49.40 lacs (for
                                                                     A.Y. 2005-06), is liable to be deleted, or
                                                                     restored back to the file of the assessing
                                                                     authority for the necessary factual
                                                                     determi-nation,where upon only the law can
                                                                     be applied?
                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                                    A.M

     MUMBAI BENCH

1.   ITA 210/Kol/2008    M/s. Shaw           S/Shri.                 "Whether, on the facts and in the Hon'ble Vice-                        Heard on
     A.Y.2004-05         Wallace Financial   1.R.K.Gupta,J.M.        circumstances of the case, the assessment in President, (MZ)           08.01.2013
                         Services Ltd.       2.Rajendra Singh,A.M.   the case of assessee for A.Y. 2004-05 can be
                                                                     said to have been made on a non existent
                                                                     company and if so, whether the same can be
                                                                     quashed?"




                                                                                                                                       25
     AGRA BENCH
1.   ITA No.         J.M.Agarwal       S/Shri.                1. "Whether, in the given facts and             Shri.G.D.Agarw    Heard on
     92/Agr/2008 &   Tabacco Co. &     1.Hari Om Maratha,     circumstances of the case when disturbed.       al, Hon'ble       14/01/2013.
     93/Agr/2008     J.M.Agarwal       J.M.                   The AO has not the Trading results and the      Vice-President
     A.Y.1998-99     Tabacco Co. (P)   2. Sanjay Arora,A.M.   assessee has explained certain incriminating    (DZ)
                     Ltd.                                     Evidences found by the Central Excise
                                                              Department, particularly when the purchases
                                                              and sales are found fully vouched and
                                                              verifiable, the entire Investment can be
                                                              treated as excess sale and be added to the
                                                              total income of the assessee or not?"
                                                              2. "Whether, in a case of a Company the 3
                                                              telephone and car running expenses can be
                                                              disallowed and added in the hands of the
                                                              company on account of personal user of
                                                              telephone/car by its director (s) or not?
                                                              3. "Whether, when the assessee's trading
                                                              account has been accepted in toto, and the
                                                              GRs were explained with reference to books
                                                              of accounts, the non-production of copies of
                                                              GRs can lead to addition, as has been done in
                                                              this case or not?"




                                                                                                                           26
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Privacy Policy

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