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: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
« 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 06.04.2012
April, 28th 2012
                       INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

               STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.04.2012


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


     MUMBAI BENCH


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




                                                                                                                                  1
                                                                  paid to the lessor as a revenue
                                                                  expenditure?"




2.   ITA Nos. 525 to     Mrs. Sumanlata   S/Shri.                 1. "Whether, non-issuance of the Zonal Vice-       Fixed on
     530/Mum/2008,       Bansal, Mumbai   1. R.S.Padvekar, J.M.   notice as provided in Sub.-sec.(2) President(MZ)   21.05.2012
     A.Ys.1999-2000 to                    2.B.Ramakotaiah,        to Section 143 of the I.T. Act in
     2004-05                              A.M.                    the case of assessment 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. R.S.Syal,A.M.      After the
     5303/M/2004         Chartered Bank   1.R.S.Padvekar, J.M.    circumstances of the case interest                 Disposal of MA
     A.Y. 1996-97                         2.Rajendra Singh,       income of Rs.73,92,16,611/- (Rs.
                                          A.M.                    39,23,71,781 + Rs.34,68,44,830)
                                                                  is asseable to tax in the year under
                                                                  consideration?"




                                                                                                                            2
     PUNE BENCH

1.   ITA               No. M/s Audyogik       S/Shri.                1. "In the facts and circumstances Zonal Vice-    Adjourned
     1712/PN/2007,         Shikshan Mandal,   1. Mukul Shrawat,      of the case, whether the property President(MZ)   Sine-die
     for A.Y. 2004-05.     Pune,              J.M.                   of the trust i.e. car, be held `made
                                              2.D. Karunakara Rao,   available' for the use of the
                                              A.M.                   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




                                                                                                                             3
                                                                    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."

     DELHI BENCH

1.   ITA              No. Bhagwati Prasad      S/Shri.              "Whether, on facts             and Hon'ble President,         Fixed on
     1868/Del/2011        Maheswari            1.I.P.Bansal,J.M.    circumstances of the case and in I.T.A.T.                     01.05.2012
                                               2.B.K.Haldar, A.M.   law the impugned issue should be
                                                                    restored back to the Assessing
                                                                    Officer with a direction that both
                                                                    the assessee and Assessing Officer
                                                                    should comply with the directions
                                                                    given in the earlier order of the
                                                                    Tribunal dated 8th June,2007 or
                                                                    the same be decided against the
                                                                    appellant."
     LUCKNOW BENCH

1.   ITA No. 141,142,143   Ms Rajya Krishi     S/Shri               1."Whether" the CIT(A) has               Hon'ble Zonal Vice- Adj Sine die
     & 144/LKW/2009        Utpadan mandi       1. I.S.Verma,J.M.    jurisdiction  to    decide  the          President (As per
     C.O.No.06 to          Parishad, Lucknow   2. N.K.Saini, A.M.   assessee's petition for stay or          order dt.20.09.2011 of
     09/LKW/2009                                                    recovery of demand during the            the           Hon'ble
     A.Y.2001-02,2002-                                              pendency of assessee's appeal            President)        Shri
     03,2003-                                                       furnished under section 246A of          H.L.Karwa as Zonal
     04 &2006-07                                                    the Act?"                                Vice-President to hear
                                                                                                             as a Third Member."
                                                                    2. "If the CIT(A) has jurisdiction
                                                                    to decide the assessee's petition
                                                                    for stay of recovery of demend ,




                                                                                                                                         4
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
decide the assessee's appeal
pending before him?"




                                     5
2.   ITA No.               M/s Zazsons        S/Shri.              "Whether, on the facts and the          Zonal Vice-President   Adjourned Sine
     219/LKW/2009 and      Exports Ltd.       1. I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as well                              die
     C.O.No.23/Lck/ 2009   Kanpur             2.N.K.Saini, A.M.    as in law, the Revenue's ground
     A.Y.2005-06                                                   Nos.3 to 6 be allowed or not?"
3.   ITA 318/Luck/2011     Late Jain Narain   S/Shri.              "Whether under the facts and            Hon'ble Vice-          To be fixed
     A.Y.2001-02           Upadhyay           1.Sunil Kumar        circumstances of the present case,      President (LZ)
                                              Yadav,J.M.           penalty under section 271 (1) ( C )
                                              2.B.R.Jain,A.M.      of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is
                                                                   sustainable in the eyes of law?"
4.   SP No.03/Lkw/2012     Smt.Uma Pandey,    S/Shri.              SP No.03/Lkw/2012                       Hon'ble President,     To be fixed
     (A/o ITA                                 Sunil Kumar                                                  I.T.A.T.
     188/Lkw/2010)                            Yadav,J.M.           "Whether, the stay earlier granted
     A.Y. 2007-08                             2.B.R.Jain,A.M.      by the Tribunal can be extended
     SP.No.04/Lkw/2012     M/s.State Urban                         till disposal of the appeal in a case
     (A/o ITA              Development                             where the appeal has been heard
     103/Lkw/2012)         Agency.                                 by the Tribunal and is pending
     A.Y. 2007-08                                                  with 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.




                                                                                                                                         6
                                                            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
     AGRA BENCH

1.   ITA No.           J.M.Agarwal   S/Shri.                1. "Whether, in the given facts Shri.P.K.Bansal, A.M.   Adjourned Sine
     92 & 93/Ag/2005   Tabacco Co.   1.Hari Om Maratha      and circumstances of the case                           - die
                                     ,J.M.                  when disturbed. The AO has not
                                     2. Sanjay Arora,A.M.   the Trading results and the
                                                            assessee has explained certain
                                                            incriminating 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




                                                                                                                           7
                                                                        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?"

     JABALPUR BENCH
1.   ITA No.                Shri. Anil Jaiswal,   S/Shri                "Whether on the facts and the Hon'ble President,           ----
     327/Jab/2009           Jabalpur              1.I.S.Verma, J.M.     circumstances of the case as well I.T.A.T.
     A25/10-2004                                  2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   as in law, the CIT(A) was justified
                                                                        in deleting the addition made,
                                                                        while making assessment under
                                                                        section 153A read with section
                                                                        143(3) of the Act on protective
                                                                        basis?"

     KOLKATTA BENCH

1.   ITA No. 685/Kol/2008   M/s Eureka Stock      S/Shri.               "Whether, the view taken by the Hon'ble President,   Fixed on
     A.Y.2004-2005          & Share Broking       1.N.L.Dash, J.M.      Hon'ble A.M. is correct or the I.T.A.T.              23.04.2012
                            Services Ltd.         2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   view taken by the Hon'ble J.M. is
                                                                        correct in view of the decision of
                                                                        the jurisdictional High Court
                                                                        followed by the CIT(Appeals)?"




                                                                                                                                    8
2.   MA.No.82 & 83/            Dr. Minati           S/Shri                  "Whether, in the facts and Hon'ble President,          Fixed on
     Kol/2010.                 Chakraborty          1.B.R.Mittal,J.M.       circumstances of the cases, there I.T.A.T.             23.04.2012
     (A/O ITA.Nos.                                  2.B.K.Haldar,AM.        is a mistake apparent from record
     525 & 526/Kol/2008)                                                    in view of non-consideration of
                                                                            Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in
                                                                            the case of Union of India & Ors
                                                                            Vs.      Dharmendra       Textile
                                                                            Processors & ors [306 ITR 377]in
                                                                            the impugned order of the
                                                                            Tribunal"

     PATNA
     BENCH ( Circuit
     Bench, Ranchi)
1    MA No.                    Shri. Ghasi Ram      S/Shri.                 "Whether, on the facts and in the Hon'ble Zonal Vice   Pending for
     11 (Pat) / 2007 arising   Agarwal, Ranchi      1. B. R. Mittal, J.M.   circumstances of the case, the President               hearing.
     out in                                         2. B.K. Haldar, A.M.    application of the department for
     IT(SS)A No.                                                            recall of the order      of   the
     45/Pat/05) A.Y. 86-87                                                  Tribunal dt. 21st June, 2006
     to 97-98                                                               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 Vice-         Pending for
     Nos. 06 to 08/Pat/06      Investment (P) Ltd., 1. B. R. Mittal, J.M.   circumstances of the case, the President               hearing.
     A.Ys.1997-98 to 1999-     Ranchi               2. B.K. Haldar, A.M.    assessee was liable under the
     2000                                                                   Interest Tax Act to pay interest tax
                                                                            on the gross interest received on




                                                                                                                                          9
                                                                       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 President,   Not yet fixed.
    49(Gau)/2004           Safety Glassess (P)   1.Hemant Sausarkar,   circumstances of the case the Ld. I.T.A.T.
    A.Y.1996-97, 1997-98   Ltd., Guwahati.       J.M.                  CIT(A) was justified in deleting
    &                                            2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   the additions made by the A.O.
    1998-99                                                            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




                                                                                                                                10
                                                                       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 India   S/Shri.               1." Whether, the learned CIT(A) Shri.Pramod   Adj. Sine -die
     98(Gau)/2002            Ltd., Calcutta.     1.Hemant Sausarkar,   has erred in law and in facts in Kumar,A.M.
     A.Y.1990-91, 1991-92,                       J.M.                  directing the A.O. to consider the
     1992-93                                     2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   income from 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.




                                                                                                                           11
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
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?"




                                      12
                                                                        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?"


4.   ITA No. 09/Gau/2006      Shri. Shyam Sunder S/Shri.                (1)    "Whether, on the basis of Hon'ble President,       Not yet fixed.
     A.Y.2002-2003            Malpani, Jorhat    Hemant Sausarkar,      facts and in the circumstances of I.T.A.T.
                                                 J.M.                   the case, the assessee is entitled to
                                                 B.R.Kaushik, A.M.      deduction u/s 80IB?"

                                                                        (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?"


5.   ITA No.161/Gau/2003      M/s 3R, Gauwahati. S/Shri                 1. "Whether in the facts and Shri. D.K.Tyagi,J.M.         Not yet fixed
     Block period f 1989-90                      1. Hement Sausarkar,   circumstances of these cases the
     to 1998-99 & 1999-                          J.M.                   block    assessments   can    be
     2000.                    M/s Panbazar       2. B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   considered invalid?"
                              Diagnostic Centre,
     ITA No.162/Gau/2004      Guwahati.                                                                       ------ do -------   Not yet fixed




                                                                                                                                        13
     Block period 1989-90                                              2. "Whether, in the facts and
     to 1998-99 & 1999-                                                circumstances of these cases it can
     2000                                                              be held that the A.O. did not bring
                                                                       on record the prima facie evidence
                                                                       for invoking jurisdiction and
                                                                       initiation of proceedings u/s 158
                                                                       BD of the Act?"



     CHENNAI BENCH

1.   ITA 493/Chenn/2010     Dr. K. Senthilnatha   S/Shri.              1."Whether the payment of Shri. O.K.Narayanan,    To be fixed
     A.Y.2004-05                                  1.Hari Om Maratha,   Rs.18,41,787/- made to CMDA Hon'ble Vice-
     ITA 494/Chenn/2010                           J.M.                 under the provisions of Section President, (CZ)
     A.Y.2005-06                                  2.N.S.Saini,A.M.     133-A of the Tamil Nadu Town
     ITA 495/Chenn/2010                                                and Country Planning Act, 1971
     A.Y.2006-07                                                       (as amended vide amending Acts
                                                                       31 of 2000, 17 of 2001 and 7 of
                                                                       2002), which was not refundable
                                                                       to the assessee forms part of the
                                                                       cost of hospital building to the
                                                                       assessee or not under section 43
                                                                       (1) of the Act?"
                                                                       2."Whether, the assessee was
                                                                       entitled to depreciation under
                                                                       section 32 of the Act in respect of
                                                                       the entire cost of hospital building
                                                                       including the payment made to
                                                                       CMDA, which was used by it for
                                                                       its business purpose or not?"




                                                                                                                               14
     BANGALORE
     BENCH
1.   MP.No 41/Bang/2010 Shri Mahesh       S/Shri/Smt.          1."Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble      Vice- Fixed on
     (ITA 773/B/10)     Hasmukh Boriya,   1.P.Madhavi Devi,   the circumstances of the case, President (BZ)       08.06.2012
                                          J.M.                there is any mistake apparent from
                                          2. A.Mohan          record rectifiable u/s 254(2) of
                                          Alankamony, A.M.    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 judgement to
                                                              the assessee on the issue of merits
                                                              in the paperbook 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
     COCHIN BENCH
1.   ITA                 P.K.Kannan   S/Shri.                1. "Whether, the provision of sec. Shri.N.Barathvaja   Adj. Sine -die
     No.1004/Coch/2008                1.N.Vijaykumaran,      194C(2) of the Act is applicable to Sankar ­VP(BZ)
     A.Y. 2005-06                     J.M.                   the assessee contractor for the
                                      2.Sanjay Arora, A.M.   relevant year; the satisfaction of
                                                             the financial criteria specified in
                                                             the provision being an undisputed
                                                             fact?"


                                                             2. "If so, whether, therefore, the
                                                             AO is right in invoking the
                                                             provision of sec.40(a)(ia) of the
                                                             Act qua the assessee's admitted
                                                             failure to deduct tax at source u/s.
                                                             194C( a ) in respect of the
                                                             credits/payments to the individual
                                                             and HUF sub-contractors?"


                                                             3. "Whether, the binding decisions
                                                             by the hon'ble jurisdictional high
                                                             court inter alia in the case of CIT
                                                             vs. South India Corpoaration Ltd.
                                                             242 ITR 114 (Ker.) and CIT vs.
                                                             Aspinwall & Co. Ltd., 98 ITR 291
                                                             (Ker.) have a direct and clear
                                                             bearing on the issue/s arising for
                                                             adjudication in the instant
                                                             appeal?"


                                                                            Sd/-




                                                                                                                          16
                                                                                    A.M.
2.   ITA 720/Coch/2010     Al-Ameen            S/Shri.                "Whether levy of penalty under Hon'ble President,   Yet to be fixed.
     A.Y.2005-06 &         Educational Trust   1.N.Vijaykumaran,      section 271D is justified?"    I.T.A.T.
     ITA 721/Coch/2010                         J.M.
     A.Y.2006-07                               2.Sanjay Arora, A.M.                    Sd/-
                                                                                      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
                                                                      determination, whereupon only
                                                                      the law can be applied?"

                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                                    A.M.



     AHMEDABAD
     BENCH
1.   ITA 2984/Ahd/2008 &   Sardar Vallabhai    S/Shri.                1."Whether under the facts and Hon'ble Vice-        Fixed on
     C.O. 223/Ahd/2008     Education Society   1.Mukul                circumstances of the case, the President (AZ)       25.04.2012
     A.Y.2000-01           Isroll, Surat       Shrawat,J.M.           matter is required to be restored
                                               2.A.K.Garodia,A.M.     back to the file of Learned
                                                                      CIT(A) for a fresh decision as
                                                                      proposed by the A.M. or the




                                                                                                                                17
                                                              tribunal can decide the matter as
                                                              per the proposed order of the
                                                              J.M."

                                                              2. "Whether under the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case, since
                                                              the receipts issued in respect of
                                                              the said "Corpus Fund" was
                                                              prepared by the employees of the
                                                              society, an enquiry was still
                                                              required to decide the nature of
                                                              the said "Corpus Fund"?

                                                              3. "Whether under the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case, the
                                                              amount      of    Rs.1,54,67,621/-
                                                              constituted the "Corpus Fund" of
                                                              the assessee-society?"

     RAJKOT
     BENCH

1.   ITA 361/Rat/1999   Shri. R.K.Mehta   Shri. T.K.Sharma,   "Whether, on the facts and in the Hon'ble Vice-   Pending
                                          A.M.                circumstances of the case and President (AZ)
                                                              material on record the addition of
                                                              Rs. 40,000/- made by AO on
                                                              account    of    investment     in
                                                              household expenses should be
                                                              deleted    or     restricted    to
                                                              Rs.30,000/-."


                                                              "Whether, on the facts and in the




                                                                                                                     18
                                                                       circumstances of the case the
                                                                       addition of Rs. 2,60,000/- in
                                                                       proprietary business namely M/s.
                                                                       Associated Apparels which was
                                                                       set up by the assessee representing
                                                                       himself      before      concerned
                                                                       authority as R.P. Pandya should
                                                                       be deleted or setaside to the file of
                                                                       A.O. for ascertaining the actual
                                                                       amount of investment in shed
                                                                       machinery etc.

     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         18.05.2012
     A.Y.97-98                                    2. N.K.Saini. A.M.   the circumstances of this case, the (Chandigarh)
     ITA 550, 489, 586, 587                                            guarantee commission received by
     & 588/CHD/99                                                      the assessees is a revenue receipt
     A.Y.87-88, 90-91, 98-                                             or a capital receipt?"
     99, 1999-2000 & 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 is
                                                                       inapplicable in view the decision
                                                                       of the Hon'ble Madras High Court
     ITA No.                  Smt. Sunaina Garg                        in the case of CIT v. Pondicherry
     143/CHD/1999                                                      Industrial              Promotion
     A.Y.97-98                                                         Development      &     Investment
     ITA Nos. 589, 590 &                                               Corporation Ltd. (supra), and the
     591/CHD/2002                                                      decision of Delhi High Court in




                                                                                                                                19
A.Y. 1998-99,                           the case of Suessen Textile
1999-2000,                              Bearings Ltd. etc. v. Union of
2000-2001                               India etc. (supra)?"
                   Shri . R.K.Garg, &
ITA 503/CHD/2002   Sons(HUF)            3. "Whether, on the facts and in
A.Y. 1997-98                            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




                                                                             20
                                                                     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.   ITA.No.378/AR/2009   M/s Ramanujam       S/Shri                    Sh.H.S.Sidhu,J.M.                   Zonal Vice President   Adjourned
                          Spiritual Public    1.H.S. Sidhu,J.M.                                                                    Sine-die
                          Charitable trust.   2. Mehar Singh, A.M.     1. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                     the circumstances of the case and
                                                                     the record available, the assessee
                                                                     is entitled for grant of approval of
                                                                     renewal of exemption under
                                                                     section 80G(5) of the Income tax
                                                                     Act, 1961?"

                                                                      2. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                     the circumstances of the case, the
                                                                     CIT can overlook the binding
                                                                     precedent of the order dated




                                                                                                                                        21
19.12.2008 passed by the ITAT,
Amritsar Bench in assessee's own
case in ITA No.512(ASR)/2008 in
para Nos.9 and 10, page No.5,
holding that the learned CIT
erroneously rejected the said
corrigendum as a mere after
thought and not having any
binding force and in the absence
of any provision of law
prohibiting the assessee from
amending the original Trust Deed
by way of corrigendum?"

 3. "Whether on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case, the
learned CIT can refuse the
approval of renewal of exemption
under section 80G(5) of the
Income tax Act, 1961 on the
ground that one of the objects
No.4 that the assessee-trust has
been established for a particular
religious purpose for the followers
of the deity, who have to be only
Hindus, inspite of the fact that he
has already granted the approval
of renewal of exemption in many
times under section 80G(5) of the
Income tax Act, 1961?"
Sh. Mehar Singh, AM.

1. " Whether, on the facts and in




                                      22
                                                                 the circumstances of the case, the
                                                                 settlers or the trustees are
                                                                 competent to effect valid
                                                                 amendment or deletion or
                                                                 addition to the object clause,
                                                                 contained in the original trust-
                                                                 deed, when there is no such
                                                                 power provided under the
                                                                 originally constituted trust and
                                                                 what are the legal consequences
                                                                 of such amendment?'

                                                                 "Whether, on the facts and in the
                                                                 circumstances of the case, the
                                                                 assesse-trust is entitled for
                                                                 approval, in terms of original
                                                                 Trust Deed and the amended one,
                                                                 under section 80G(5) of the Act,
                                                                 without compliance with the
                                                                 statutory conditions precedent of
                                                                 section 80G(5)(iii) read with
                                                                 explanation 3 to section 80G(5C)
                                                                 of the Act?"
2.   IT(SS)A No.       Sh.Vinod Goel       S/Shri                 Shri H.S.Sidhu.                  Zonal Vice President   Adjourned
     14/ASR/2005.                          1. H.S. Sidhu, J.M.                                                            Sine-die
                                           2.Mehar Singh,A.M.    1."Whether, on the facts and in
     IT(SS)A           M/s Sidhant                               the circumstances of present case,
     No.13/ASR/2005.   Deposits &                                the issues in the present appeals
                       Advances(P) Ltd.                          are covered by the decision of the
                                                                 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
     IT(SS)A           M/s Trimurti                              case of Manish Maheshwary Vs.
     No.12/ASR/2005    Deposits &                                ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC)
                       Advances (P) Ltd.                         and the decision of the Hon'ble




                                                                                                                               23
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




                                        24
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?"




                                      25
     JODHPUR BENCH


1.   ITA No.362(JU)/10   Smt. Supriya       S/Shri                "Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble           Vice- Adjourned
                         Kanwar, Jodhpur.   1.Joginder Singh,J.M. circumstances of the case and in President (CZ)       Sine-die
                                            2. K.G. Bansal,A.M. law, the transactions of purchase
                                                                  and sale of five pieces of
                                                                  agricultural land with standing
                                                                  from any municipal council,
                                                                  amount to transactions on capital
                                                                  account or 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.




                                                                                                                             26
                             INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI


                     LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.04.2012.



Sr. Appeal No.          Name of the         Bench                  Points involved                                 To Whom      Remarks
No                      Assessee                                                                                   assigned
    MUMBAI BENCH

1.   ITA No.            M/s. Shaw           S/Shri.                "Whether on the facts and in the Zonal Vice-                 Heard on
     210/Kol/2008       Wallace Financial   1.R.K.Gupta, J.M.      circumstances of the case, the assessment in President(MZ)   01.11.2011
     A.Y. 2004-05       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?

2.   ITA Nos. 2680   & Shri. Ismail         S/Shri.                1. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances Hon'ble Vice-    Heard on
     2681/Mum/2008     Abdulkarim           1. R.K.Gupta, J.M.     of the present case the capital gain on the President        13.03.2012
     A.Y.2005-06.      Balwa., Mumbai,                             sale of property in question is liable to be (MZ)
                                            2.Rajendra Singh,      taxed on the basis of long term capital gains
                                              A.M.                 or short term capital gains?

                                                                   2. "Whether, on the facts of the present case
                                                                   where the AO in the case of one co-owner
                                                                   has accepted the gain as long term capital
                                                                   gains then a different view can be taken in
                                                                   the case of other co-owner?"




                                                                                                                                  27
     BILASPUR BENCH

1.   ITA No. 53/Nag/2007   M/s Gumla Flour      S/Shri.               1. "Whether, in the facts and circumstances Shri.S.K.Yadav, Heard on
     A.Y.1999-2000         Mills Ltd., Raipur   1.Hemant Sausarkar,   of the case, the addition of Rs.40,11,000/- J.M.            03.02.2012
                                                J.M.                  made by the Assessing Officer and
                                                2.P.M.Jagtap, A.M.    confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account
                                                                      of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 is liable to
                                                                      be deleted as held by the learned J.M. or the
                                                                      matter needs to be restored to the file of the
                                                                      A.O. for giving him an opportunity to decide
                                                                      the same afresh in the light of documentary
                                                                      evidence filed by the assessee for the first
                                                                      time before the learned CIT(A) as held by the
                                                                      learned AM?"


                                                                      2. "Whether, in the facts and circumstances
                                                                      of the case, the disallowance of Rs.1,64,432/-
                                                                      made by the AO and confirmed by the
                                                                      learned CIT(A) on account of interest paid in
                                                                      respect of the aforesaid cash credits is liable
                                                                      to be deleted as held by the learned JM or
                                                                      this matter being consequential to the main
                                                                      issue relating to the addition u/s 68 also
                                                                      needs to be restored to the file of the AO for
                                                                      deciding the same afresh depending on his
                                                                      decision on the main issue?"


     LUCKNOW BENCH

1.   ITA 336/Luck/2011     Vishnu Jaiswal       S/Shri.               ITA 336/Luck/2011                                 Hon'ble Vice-    Heard on
     A.Y.2006-07                                1.Sunil Kumar         Per J.M.                                          President (LZ)   15.03.2012
     ITA 115/Luck/2011     M/s. Dwarkadhish     Yadav,J.M.



                                                                                                                                           28
A.Y.2005-06         Sugar Industries   2.B.R.Jain,A.M.   "Whether addition can be made on account
ITA 304/Luck/2011   M/s. Pragati                         of unexplained cash credit under section 68
A.Y. 2005-06        Engineering                          of the Income-tax Act where the creditor is
                    Corpn.                               failed to explain the source of cash deposited
                                                         in his account before issuance of cheque of
                                                         loan amount in favour of the assessee in
                                                         order to prove his creditworthiness?"
                                                          Per A.M.
                                                         "Whether on the          peculiar facts and
                                                         circumstances and in law the appellant has
                                                         discharged the onus that lay upon him about
                                                         the creditworthiness of the transaction of
                                                         loan credits aggregating to Rs.3.50 lacs and
                                                         deletion of additions u/s 68 of the I.T. Act,
                                                         justified?"
                                                          ITA 115/Luck/2011
                                                         Per J.M.

                                                         "Whether additions can be made on account
                                                         of unexplained cash credit under section 68
                                                         of the Income-tax Act where the creditor is
                                                         failed to explain the source of cash deposited
                                                         in his account before issuance of cheque of
                                                         loan amount in favour of the assessee in
                                                         order to prove his creditworthiness?"

                                                         Per A.M.
                                                         "Whether on the peculiar facts and
                                                         circumstances and in law the appellant has
                                                         discharged the onus that lay upon him about
                                                         the creditworthiness of the transaction of
                                                         loan credits aggregating of Rs.3.30 lacs and
                                                         deletion of additions u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, is




                                                                                                            29
justified?"

ITA 304/Luck/2011
Per J.M.

 "Whether the Tribunal being the last fact
finding body can estimate the net profit from
the business of the assessee in the absence of
books of account instead of confirming the
disallowances sustained by the ld. CIT(A)
under various heads?"


Per A.M.

1. "On the peculiar facts, circumstances of
the case and in law whether learned CIT(A)
has committed any error in sustaining the
disallowance of expenses made by the
Assessing Authority and requires application
of provisions of section 145 of the Act by the
Appellate Tribunal within the scope of its
powers and consequent estimation of income
by application of net profit rate?"


2. On the peculiar facts and in law, whether
there is any error in denying depreciation
allowance to the appellant on the book value
or Road Roller?"




                                                 30
     KOLKATTA BENCH

1.   ITA 695/Kol/2010      Darabshaw B.        S/Shri.                "Whether in the given facts and Shri.Pramod            Heard on
     A.Y.2003-04           Cursetjee's Sons    1.Mahavir Singh,J.M.   circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is Kumar, A.M.   16.03.2012
                           Ltd.                2.C.D.Rao,A.M.         justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s.
                                                                      271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or
                                                                      not?"


2.   ITA 488/Kol/2011      S.P.Jaiswal Estates S/Shri.                "Whether, in the given facts and Shri. Pramod          Heard on
     A.Y.2006-07           Pvt. Ltd.           1.Mahavir Singh,J.M.   circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is Kumar, A.M.   16.03.2012
     ITA 525/Kol/2011                          2.C.D.Rao,A.M.         justified in confirming the disallowance of
     A.Y. 2007-08                                                     interest on borrowed funds on the ground
                                                                      that the assessee's own funds are not
                                                                      sufficient to advance the same to the sister
                                                                      concerns and further whether the CIT(A) is
                                                                      justified in confirming the action of the A.O.
                                                                      by stating that the funds used by the sister
                                                                      concerns      are   not     for    commercial
                                                                      expediency?"

     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
     ITA No. 20/Gau/2005   Guwahati.           2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.    view of decisions in the following cases-
     A.Y.2001-2002         M/s Shiva Sakti                                                                                   Heard on
                           Floor Mills (P)                            i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR 847              04.04.2012
     C.O.No.02/Gau/2005    Ltd., Tinsukia                             (Gau)
                                                                      ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And
                                                                      Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC)
     ITA No.165/Gau/2004   M/s Virgo
     A.Y.2001-2002         Cements Ltd.,                              iii) DCIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003)                Heard on



                                                                                                                               31
                           Guwahati.                                  263 ITR 357 (Gau)                                               03.04.2012
                                                                      iv) CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products Ltd. 251
                                                                      ITR 427(SC) and
                                                                      v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT
                                                                      238 ITR 354(Cal).





     CHENNAI BENCH

1.   ITA              No. M/s. Spencer and    S/Shri.              1."Whether, the order passed by the ld. CIT       Hon'ble Vice     Heard on
     440/Chenn/2011       Company Ltd.           1. Hari Om        u/s 263 in the given case is barred by            President (CZ)   14.12.2011
                                                      Maratha,A.M. limitation or not"?
                                                 2. N.S.Saini,A.M. 2.Whether, any issue of income on which the
                                                                   Assessing Officer did not apply his mind
                                                                   while passing the assessment order u/s 143
                                                                   r.w.s.147 would give a valid jurisdiction to
                                                                   the ld. CIT to revise that order of not."?
2.   ITA             No. Mr.P.R.              S/Shri.              "Whether, in view of facts and circumstances      Hon'ble Vice     Heard on
     1830/Chenn/2009     Chockalingam            1. U.B.S.Bedi,J.M of the case, prior to applying and obtaining      President (CZ)   15.12.2011
                                                 2. A.P.George,AM "No Objection Certificate" under chapter
                                                      .            XXC for proposed transfer exceeding
                                                                   amount and asset situated in area prescribed,
                                                                   deemed transfer u/s 2(47) of Income Tax Act
                                                                   could be held to be valid when there is
                                                                   specific restriction imposed in this regard and
                                                                   also there is specific provision to treat such
                                                                   transfer as "void" and exemption/deduction
                                                                   u/s 54/54F could be allowed on the basis of
                                                                   such deemed transfer OR NOT."

3.   ITA 1058/Mds/2010     Shri.R.Natarajan   S/Shri.                 In view of the facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Vice            Heard on
                                                 1. U.B.S.Bedi,J.M    whether income on account of incentive President (CZ)           18.01.2012
                                                 2. A.P.George,       pertaining to assessment year 2007-08
                                                      A.M.            received in the assessment year 2008-09 and



                                                                                                                                        32
                                                               offered by the assessee himself in the return
                                                               for the year under consideration, when
                                                               returned income came to be accepted could
                                                               be directed to be deleted as held by the
                                                               Accountane Member OR could the
                                                               assessment framed by accepting the returned
                                                               income, in the absence of filing of revised
                                                               return excluding such incentive, in view of
                                                               the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
                                                               the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006)
                                                               284 ITR 323 (SC), be upheld as held by
                                                               Judicial Member?


4.   ITA No.          M/s. South India   S/Shri.               "Whether the capital gains, arising in this Hon'ble               Heard on
     717/Chenn/2011   Pulversing Mills   1.Hari Om             case is to be assessed in the hands of the firm Vice -President   19.04.2012
     A.Y. 2007-08                        Maratha,J.M.          or in the hands of Shri. Jayant Kumar (CZ)
                                         2.Sanjay Arora,A.M.   Sharma, as individual, in the given facts and
                                                               the circumstances of the case?"

     COCHIN BENCH

1.   ITA No.          B.Parameswaan      S/Shri                "Whether, explanation(e) to Sub-Sec(3) to Hon'ble Vice -          Heard on
     159/Coch/2007    Bharathan          1.N.VijayakumaranJM   Section 80 HHC can override the clause (b) President (BZ)         15.12.2011
                                         2.Sanjay Arora,AM     to Section 80 HHC (3) of the Income-tax
                                                               Act, 1961?"
                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                                      J.M.

                                                               1. "Whether, there is any inconsistency
                                                               between sec.80 HHC (3) and explanation
                                                               thereto?"

                                                               2. "Whether, the indirect cost that is to be



                                                                                                                                   33
                                                             reduced from the export turnover of trading
                                                             goods, in terms of s. 80HHC(3) (b), is to be
                                                             determined by apportioning such costs in the
                                                             statutorily prescribed formula of the ratio of
                                                             the said turn over to the total turnover or is it
                                                             liable to any reduction before applying the
                                                             said ratio thereto?"

                                                             3. "Whether, the decision by the Hon'ble
                                                             jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT
                                                             Vs parry Agro Industries Ltd, 257 ITR 41
                                                             (Ker) has applicability in the facts and
                                                             circumstances of the case or not?"
2.   ITA 174 &       Kerala Nut Food   S/Shri                "Whether, explanation (e) to Sub-Sec (3) to Hon'ble Vice -   Heard on
     175/Coch/2010   Co.               1.N.VijayakumaranJM   Section 80 HHC can override the clause (b) President (BZ)    15.12.2011
                                       2.Sanjay Arora,AM     to Section 80 HHC (3) of the Income tax Act,
                                                             1961?"
                                                                                        Sd/-
                                                                                       J.M.
                                                             1. "Whether, there is any inconsistency
                                                             between sec. 80HHC (3) and explanation
                                                             thereto?"

                                                             2. "Whether, the indirect cost that is to be
                                                             reduced from the export turnover of trading
                                                             goods, in terms of s.80HHC(3)(b), is to be
                                                             determined by apportioning such costs in the
                                                             statutorily prescribed formula of the ratio of
                                                             the said turnover to the total turnover, or is it
                                                             liable to any reduction before applying the
                                                             said ratio thereto?"

                                                             3. "Whether, the reliance by the Revenue on




                                                                                                                            34
                                                                      the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdiction High
                                                                      court in the case of CIT Vs Parry Agro
                                                                      Industries Ltd, 257 ITR 41 (Ker), is in the
                                                                      facts and circumstances of the case, apposite
                                                                      or misplaced?"
                                                                                              Sd/-
                                                                                             A.M.
3.   ITA 1204 &             M/s Bhageeratha    S/Shri                 1. "Whether the ld. CIT(Appeal) is justified Hon'ble Vice -   Heard on
     1277/Coch/05 &CO 11    Engineering Ltd.   1.N.Vijayakumaran,J.   in allowing the sum of Rs. 1,80.28.280/- President (BZ)       19.03.2012
     & 12/Coch/2006.                           M.                     being loan given to its subsidiary company as
                                               2.Sanjay Arora,A.M.    business expenditure u/s.37 of the I.T.Act?"

                                                                      2. "Whether the Assessing Officer is
                                                                      empowered to disallow under his powers
                                                                      vested u/s.154 of the I.T.Act?"
                                                                           Sd/-                  Sd/-
                                                                           A.M.                 J.M.

                                                                      3. "Whether, the disallowance of Rs. 180.28
                                                                      lacs under reference stands in fact effected
                                                                      vide order u/s 154 of the Act or only per
                                                                      regular assessment."
                                                                                           Sd/-
                                                                                           A.M.
4.   ITA No.                M. Abdul Latheef   S/Shri                 1. "Whether, IAT's order in the assessee's Hon'ble Vice -     Heard on
     494 to 499/Coch/2009                      1.N.VijayakumaranJM    own case for the A.Y.00-01 need not be President (BZ)         20.03.2012
                                               2.Sanjay Arora,AM      followed as a matter of consistency for the
                                                                      A.Y.s under appeal.

                                                                      2. "Whether rent as shown for these AYs
                                                                      under appeal i.e.01-02 to 06-07 should be
                                                                      adopted at a higher rent as shown by the AO
                                                                      without any change in circumstances even




                                                                                                                                      35
                                                                after the concept of annual value retained
                                                                w.e.f.02-03?"
                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                                      J.M.
                                                                "Whether, the facts and circumstances for the
                                                                years under reference are the same as that
                                                                obtaining for A.Y.00-01, for the decision by
                                                                the Tribunal for that year to hold for the
                                                                current year(s) as well?"
                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                                          A.M.


5.   ITA No.207/Coch/2009 Baby Marine   S/Shri.                 1. "Whether, or not the issue of the `indirect Hon'ble Vice-   Heard on
     A.Y. 2001-02         Products      1.N.Vijaykumaran,J.M.   exports' by a supporting manufacturer (in President(BZ)        19.03.2012
                                        2.Sanjay Arora,A.M.     respect of the turnover disclaimed by the
                                                                export house in its favour) as forming part of
                                                                its export turnover and, thus, exigible for
                                                                deduction under section 80HHC of the Act,
                                                                stands settled by a series of binding
                                                                decisions?"

                                                                2. "Whether, in any case, the matter, after
                                                                examination of the obtaining facts and
                                                                circumstances, stands concluded in the
                                                                affirmative in the assessee's own case for the
                                                                current assessment year itself, precluding it
                                                                being agitated in the instant proceedings?"

                                                                3. "If so, whether the Assessing Officer was
                                                                accordingly right in proceeding to apply the
                                                                retrospective amendment to sec. 80HHC (by
                                                                the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005,




                                                                                                                                 36
                                                               with retrospective effect from 1.4.1998) by
                                                               invoking section 154 of the Act?"

                                                                                  Sd/-
                                                                                  A.M.
     VISHAKHAPATNAM
     BENCH
1.   ITSSA. 39 &        Smt. Ch.         S/Shri                IT(SS)A.39/Viz/2004                          Hon'ble Vice-    Heard on
     45/Viz/2004        Satyavathi       1.P.K.Bansal, A.M     Per A.M.                                     President (MZ)   14.12.2011
     A.Y. 1987-88 to                     2.Hemant Sausarkar,    1. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances
      1997-98                            J.M                    of the case, the addition of Rs.3,91,288/-
                                                                made by A.O. in respect of gold jewelry be
     ITSSA. 41 to       Sri.Samapath                            sustained or deleted?"
     44/Viz/96          Kumar Jain and                          2. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances
     A.Y. 01.04.85 to   others                                  of the case, the addition made by Assessing
     18.10.95                                                   Officer for Rs.3.89 Lacs on account of
                                                                agricultural income be sustained or
                                                                deleted?"
                                                                3. "Whether, the appeal of the revenue be
                                                                allowed or dismissed on the facts and
                                                                circumstances of the case?"

                                                               IT(SS)A.45/Viz/2004
                                                               Per A.M.

                                                                1. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances,
                                                                the addition of Rs. 21 Lacs made by the
                                                                Assessing Officer under Chapter XVB be
                                                                sustained or deleted?"
                                                               2. "Whether, the ground No.5,6,7,8,9 & 10 of
                                                               assessee's appeal are to be allowed or
                                                               dismissed on the facts and circumstance of
                                                               the case?"




                                                                                                                               37
IT(SS)A 44/Hyd/1996
Per A.M.

1. "Whether, the Statement recorded u/s 132
(4) is a conclusive evidence?"
2. "Whether,, in view of provision of Section
132 (4 A) the cash flow statement found
during the course of search is to be belonging
to the assessee and is to be presumed to be
correct as to its content if no contrary
material is brought on record during the
course of assessment?"
3. "Whether, the addition of Rs. 2.70 Lacs in
the income of Shri. Sampath Kumar Jain and
Rs. 2.10 lacs each in the income of S/S
Suresh Kumar Jain, Kishore Kumar Jain and
Mukesh Kumar Jain be sustained or deleted
on the facts and circumstances of respective
case?"

4. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances
of the case the appeal filed by S/S Sampath
Kumar Jain, Suresh Kumar Jain and Kishore
Kumar Jain be allowed or dismissed?"
5. Whether, the appeal IT (SS) A 44/Hyd/96
filed by Mahesh Kumar Jain be dismissed or
partly allowed in the facts and circumstances
of the case."




                                                 38
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Contact Us

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