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
|
