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: due date for vat payment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES
 
 
« ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi Consolidated of Benches for 14/12/2016 & 15/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches Mumbal Consolidated cause list of Sa/MA/ Pronouncement for friday 09.12.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata Benches Kolkata Consolidated list of Orders read for Pronouncement on 02/12/2016
 Income TAx Appellate Tibunal Pune Benches Pune Causelist for Bench "A" For The Week Ending 09/12/2016
 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, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.04.2013
April, 30th 2013
                       INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
            STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.04.2013


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


     MUMBAI BENCH
1.   ITA No.            M/s Kaira Can   S/Shri.          Reference dt. 25.11.2008 u/s Shri I.P. Bansal,   Fixed on
     6987/Mum/2003      Company Ltd.    1. Sunil Kumar   255(4) of the Income Tax Act JM.                 21/05/2013
     ITA No. 5280 &                     Yadav, J.M.      made afresh by S/Shri. Sunil
     5281/Mum/2004                      2. V.K.Gupta,    Kumar Yadav, J.M. and V.K.
     A.Y. 1996-97 to                    A.M.             Gupta, A.M. is as under.
     1998-99
                                                         1. "Whether the impugned
                                                         transactions of leasing out of
                                                         assets to the assessee is a lease
                                                         transaction or a financial lease?

                                                         2. "Whether the assessee can be
                                                         held to be the owner of the asset
                                                         acquired under the above
                                                         transactions and is entitled for
                                                         depreciation over the said assets
                                                         or assessee being a lessee is
                                                         entitled to claim the lease rent
                                                         paid to the lessor as a revenue
                                                         expenditure?"







                                                                                                                       1
2.   ITA Nos. 525 to     Mrs. Sumanlata   S/Shri.             1. "Whether, non-issuance of Zonal Vice-        Fixed on
     530/Mum/2008,       Bansal, Mumbai   1. R.S.Padvekar,    the notice as provided in Sub.- President(MZ)   06.05.2013
     A.Ys.1999-2000 to                       J.M.             sec.(2) to Section 143 of the I.T.
     2004-05                              2.B.Ramakotaiah,    Act in the case of assessment
                                            A.M.              framed       u/sec.153A,        in
                                                              consequence of search under
                                                              sec. 132, is merely an
                                                              irregularity and the same is
                                                              curable?"

                                                              2. "Whether ,on the facts of the
                                                              case, failure on the part of the
                                                              Assessessing Officer (A.O.) to
                                                              issue notice to the assessee as
                                                              per provisions of Sub-sec.(2) to
                                                              Section 143 shall have the
                                                              effect of rendering the entire
                                                              assessment framed u/sec. 153A
                                                              of the Act as null and void?"

3.   ITA 5229/M/2004     M/s. Standard    S/Shri.             "Whether on the facts and Shri. R.S. Syal,      After the
     & 5303/M/2004       Chartered Bank   1.R.S.Padvekar,     circumstances of the case A.M.                  Disposal of MA
     A.Y. 1996-97                           J.M.              interest      income        of
                                          2.Rajendra          Rs.73,92,16,611/-
                                            Singh, A.M.       (Rs.39,23,71,781+Rs.34,68,44,
                                                              830) is asseable to tax in the
                                                              year under consideration?"

     PUNE BENCHES
1.   ITA             No. M/s Audyogik     S/Shri.             1.    "In    the   facts     and Zonal Vice-    Fixed on
     1712/PN/2007,       Shikshan Mandal, 1. Mukul Shrawat,   circumstances of the case, President(MZ)     24/05/2013
     for A.Y. 2004-05.   Pune,            J.M.                whether the property of the trust
                                          2.D. Karunakara     i.e. car, be held `made
                                          Rao, A.M.           available' for the use of the
                                                              trustee, specified person u/s
                                                              13(3) of the Income Tax Act
                                                              1961?"


                                                                                                                               2
2.    "In    the     facts    and
circumstances of the case,
whether the expression `made
available for the use of' trustee
ipso facto be understood to have
been deemed used or applied
for the benefit of the said
trustee, with or without the
actual use or application of the
property of the trust i.e. car for
personal benefit of the trustee in
view of section 13(2) of the
Income Tax Act 1961?"

3.      "In the facts and
circumstances of the case,
whether the case of the assessee
falls within the ambit of the
provisions of clause (b) of
section 13(2) of the Income tax
Act 1961?"

4. "If the answers to above
questions at sr. No. (1) to (3)
are affirmative, whether the
denial of benefits of section 11
be restricted to such income of
the trust used or applied directly
or indirectly for the benefits of
trustee or, in alternative, the
total income of the trust is not
entitled for the benefits of
section 11 of the Act."




                                     3
      DELHI
     BENCHES
1.   IT(SS)A        No. Mr. Vijay Bansal,   S/Shri            1. "Whether the addition on Hon'ble          Vice-
     438/Del/2005    & Haryana.             1. Hari Om        account      of      undisclosed President (BZ)
     IT(SS)A.22/Del/06                         Maratha, JM.   investment on the investment
                                            2.T.S.Kapoor,     on the education of daughter of
                                            AM.               the assessee, in the block
                                                              period, found to have been
                                                              made has been correctly
                                                              sustained or it deserves to be
                                                              deleted in the given facts and
                                                              the circumstances of the case?
                                                              2. Whether an addition made
                                                              and sustained on account of
                                                              undisclosed investment found in
                                                              the construction of the property
                                                              deserves to be deleted or
                                                              sustained in the given facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case?
                                                              3. Whether any addition can
                                                              be made in the business income
                                                              of the assessee on the basis of
                                                              evidence gathered behind the
                                                              back of the assessee by opening
                                                              a floppy found and seized
                                                              during the search conducted u/s
                                                              132(1) of the Act or not?
                                                              4.     Whether the cash found
                                                              during search from a brief-case
                                                              stands explained, in the given
                                                              facts and circumstances of the
                                                              case or not?




                                                                                                                   4
     LUCKNOW
     BENCHES
1.   ITA No.             Ms Rajya Krishi   S/Shri               1."Whether" the CIT(A) has              Shri.Barathvja     Adjourned Sine
     141,142,143 &       Utpadan mandi     1. I.S.Verma,J.M.    jurisdiction to decide the              Sankar,Vice        die
     144/LKW/2009        Parishad,         2. N.K.Saini, A.M.   assessee's petition for stay or         President (as per
     C.O.No.06 to        Lucknow                                recovery of demand during the           dt.03.04.2013) of
     09/LKW/2009                                                pendency of assessee's appeal           the        Hon'ble
     A.Y.2001-02,2002-                                          furnished under section 246A of         President)
     03,2003-                                                   the Act?"
     04 &2006-07                                                2. "If the CIT(A) has jurisdiction
                                                                to decide the assessee's petition for
                                                                stay of recovery of demend , than
                                                                under which provisions of law the
                                                                CIT(A) will pass such an order i.e.
                                                                what will be the nature or status of
                                                                such order passed by the CIT(A)?"
                                                                3. "Whether, such order (supra)
                                                                passed by the CIT(A) is
                                                                appealable before the Tribunal
                                                                or not i.e. can such an order be
                                                                appealed against before the
                                                                Tribunal by way of an appeal
                                                                under section 253 of the Act, or
                                                                can be challenged only before the
                                                                Hon'ble High Court by way of
                                                                writ petition?"
                                                                4. "If such an order(Supra) is
                                                                found to be appealable before the
                                                                Tribunal, then can the Tribunal
                                                                entertain such an appeal against
                                                                such order without there being
                                                                appeal before it against the order
                                                                of CIT(A) in appeal against the
                                                                order of the Assessing Officer or
                                                                other orders appealable under
                                                                section 246A of the Act, as the
                                                                case may be, for the reason that the
                                                                CIT(A) has not preferred to
                                                                decide the assessee's appeal
                                                                pending before him?"

                                                                                                                                            5
2.   ITA No.            M/s Zazsons      S/Shri.              "Whether, on the facts and the      Shri. S. V.        Adjourned Sine
     219/LKW/2009 and   Exports Ltd.     1. I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as        Mehrotra, A.M.     die
     C.O.No.23/Lck/     Kanpur           2.N.K.Saini, A.M.    well as in law, the Revenue's       (As per order
     2009 A.Y.2005-06                                         ground Nos.3 to 6 be allowed or     dt.21.03.2013 of
                                                              not?"                               the Hon'ble
                                                                                                  President)
3.   SPNo.03/Lkw/2012   Smt.Uma Pandey, S/Shri.               SP No.03/Lkw/2012                  Shri.G.D.Agarwal,   Hearing is
     (A/o ITA                           Sunil Kumar                                              Hon'ble Vice-       awaited.
     188/Lkw/2010)                      Yadav,J.M.            "Whether, the stay earlier President (DZ and
     A.Y. 2007-08                       2.B.R.Jain,A.M.       granted by the Tribunal can be LZ)
     SP.No.04/Lkw/201   M/s.State Urban                       extended till disposal of the
     2                  Development                           appeal in a case where the
     (A/o ITA           Agency.                               appeal has been heard by the
     103/Lkw/2012)                                            Tribunal and is pending with
     A.Y. 2007-08                                             the Members for order?"
                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                                    J.M.
                                                              "Whether, on the peculiar facts,
                                                              circumstances of this case and
                                                              in law, there is any justification
                                                              in extending the stay of the
                                                              disputed demand that already
                                                              had run beyond 365 days or the
                                                              application so made by the
                                                              assessee is liable to be
                                                              rejected?"
                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                                    A.M.
                                                              SP No.04/Lkw/2012
                                                              "Whether, under the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case, the
                                                              outstanding demand can be
                                                              stayed outrightly or subject to
                                                              payment of part of demand in
                                                              instalments as proposed?"
                                                                    Sd/-                  Sd/-
                                                                   J.M.                  A.M


                                                                                                                                      6
4.   ITA No.        Smt. Uma Pandey S/Shri.           "Whether, under the facts and Shri.G.D.Agarwal, Hearing is
     188/Lkw/2010                   1.Sunil Kumar     circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Vice-    awaited.
     A.Y. 2007-08                   Yadav,J.M.        payments received by the President (DZ/LZ)
                                    2.B.R.Jain,A.M.   assessee from M/s. Amit Poly
                                                      Yarn Ltd. (now known as M/s
                                                      Amitech Ind. Ltd) are receipt as
                                                      an advance against sales made
                                                      during      the      course    of
                                                      commercial transactions and
                                                      therefore provisions of section
                                                      2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act,
                                                      1961 are not attracted to these
                                                      payments or the aforesaid
                                                      payments are purely an
                                                      advance/loan made to the
                                                      assessee,       attracting    the
                                                      provisions of section 2(22)(e) of
                                                      the Act?
                                                       "Whether,      the     issue  of
                                                      allotment of shares for Rs.10
                                                      lakhs can be restored to the
                                                      Assessing Officer to investigate
                                                      the fact as to whether the
                                                      allotment of shares was
                                                      unilateral act of the company i.e
                                                      M/s. Amitech Ind. Ltd. or the
                                                      allotment was done at the instance
                                                      of the assessee in order determine
                                                      the applicability of provisions of
                                                      section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the
                                                      benefit accrued to the assessee on
                                                      allotment of shares or addition of
                                                      Rs.10 lakhs can be confirmed by
                                                      holding that benefit accrued to the
                                                      assessee on allotment of shares
                                                      attracts provisions of section
                                                      2(22)(e) of the Act on the basis of
                                                      material available on record?"
                                                           Sd/-                  Sd/-
                                                           J.M.                  A.M
                                                                                                                   7
     JABALPUR
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.             Shri. Anil          S/Shri              "Whether on the facts and the Hon'ble                        ----
     327/Jab/2009        Jaiswal, Jabalpur   1.I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as President,
     A25/10-2004                             2.B.R.Kaushik,      well as in law, the CIT(A) was I.T.A.T.
                                             A.M.                justified in deleting the addition
                                                                 made, while making assessment
                                                                 under section 153A read with
                                                                 section 143(3) of the Act on
                                                                 protective basis?"


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




                                                                                                                                       8
    PATNA BENCH
    (Circuit Bench,
    Ranchi)
1    MA No.                Shri. Ghasi Ram   S/Shri.            "Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble Zonal     Pending for
     11 (Pat) / 2007       Agarwal, Ranchi   1. B. R. Mittal,   the circumstances of the case, Vice President   hearing.
     arising out in                          J.M.               the     application   of    the (KZ)
     IT(SS)A No.                             2. B.K. Haldar,    department for recall of the
     45/Pat/05) A.Y. 86-                     A.M.               order of the Tribunal dt. 21st
     87 to 97-98                                                June, 2006 passed in IT(ss)A
                                                                No. 91(Pat)/05 to delete the
                                                                amount of Rs.45,823/- is to be
                                                                allowed as held by the learned
                                                                Accountant Member or is to be
                                                                rejected as held by the learned
                                                                Judicial Member."



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

2.     "Whether on the facts and
in the circumstances of the case
the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is
required to be set aside with the
direction to decide the issue
afresh after giving proper
opportunity to the assessee on
the     relevant     information
received by the A.O. on
25.02.2003 from the Bureau of
Investigation         (Economic
Offence)?"

3. "Whether, on the facts and
 in the circumstances of the
 case, the Ld. Judicial Member
 was justified in holding that
 the issuance of notice u/s 148
 cannot hold good and,
 therefore, the assessment u/s
 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is
 illegal, unjustified and void or
 the Ld. Accountant Member
 was justified in holding that
 the reopening of assessment
 and subsequent assessment
 made by the A.O. is
 justified?"
                                    10
                                                        As       per     the      order
                                                        dt.16.04.2008 of the Hon'ble
                                                        President
                                                        "All the three questions would
                                                        be considered u/s 255(4) by the
                                                        President."
2.   ITA Nos. 96, 97 &  Brooke Bond   S/Shri.           1. "Whether, the learned Shri.Pramod        Adjourned Sine
     98(Gau)/2002       India Ltd.,   1.Hemant          CIT(A) has erred in law and in Kumar,A.M.   -die
     A.Y.1990-91, 1991- Calcutta.     Sausarkar, J.M.   facts in directing the A.O. to
     92, 1992-93                      2.B.R.Kaushik,    consider the income from
                                      A.M.              interest and dividend as
                                                        business income for the purpose
                                                        of eligible deduction u/s 32AB
                                                        of the Act, in view of the
                                                        decision in the case of CIT Vs.
                                                        Dinjoy Tea Estate (P) Ltd.
                                                        (1997) 224 ITR 263 (Gau), 271
                                                        ITR 123 (Cal), 273 ITR 470
                                                        (Mad) and 224 ITR 263
                                                        (Gau)?"
                                                        2. "Whether, this Bench of the
                                                        Tribunal working under the
                                                        jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
                                                        Guwahati High Court can allow
                                                        the claim of the assessee that
                                                        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
                                                                                                                     11
                                                                  claim of expenditure of
                                                                  Rs.94,363/- and Rs.1,26,718/-
                                                                  attributable to the foreign tour
                                                                  of Mrs. R. Sen, wife of the
                                                                  director, Mr. D. Sen, was not
                                                                  wholly and exclusively for the
                                                                  purpose of business?"
                                                                  4. "Whether, in view of change
                                                                  of stand by the assessee
                                                                  regarding nature and purpose of
                                                                  expenditure taken before the
                                                                  Ld.CIT(A) for the first time the
                                                                  issue was required to be
                                                                  restored to the A.O. for fresh
                                                                  adjudication after enquiring into
                                                                  the claim of the assessee?"

3.   ITA No.              Shri. Shyam         S/Shri.             (1) "Whether, on the basis of Hon'ble                         Not yet fixed.
     09/Gau/2006          Sunder Malpani,     Hemant Sausarkar,   facts and in the circumstances President,
     A.Y.2002-2003        Jorhat              J.M.                of the case, the assessee is I.T.A.T.
                                              B.R.Kaushik,        entitled to deduction u/s 80IB?"
                                              A.M.                (2) "Whether, in view of the
                                                                  decision in the case of CIT Vs
                                                                  Down Town Hospital Ltd. 251
                                                                  ITR 683 (Gau), the issue was
                                                                  required to be restored to the
                                                                  learned CIT(A) for fresh
                                                                  adjudication after ascertaining
                                                                  whether all the conditions u/s
                                                                  80 IB are fulfilled?"
4.   ITA 161/Gau/2003     M/s 3R,             S/Shri              1. "Whether in the facts and Shri.                            Not yet fixed
     Block period f       Gauwahati.          1. Hement           circumstances of these cases the D.K.Tyagi,J.M.
     1989-90 to 1998-99                       Sausarkar, J.M.     block     assessments    can     be
     & 1999-2000.                             2. B.R.Kaushik,     considered invalid?"
                                                                  2. "Whether, in the facts and
                                              A.M.
                                                                  circumstances of these cases it can
     ITA 162/Gau/2004     M/s Panbazar
                                                                  be held that the A.O. did not bring
     Block period 1989-   Diagnostic                              on record the prima facie evidence for
     90 to 1998-99 &      Centre, Guwahati.                       invoking jurisdiction and initiation of
     1999-2000                                                    proceedings u/s 158 BD of the Act?"       ------ do -------
                                                                                                                                                 12
     BANGALORE
     BENCH
1.   MP.No            Shri Mahesh       S/Shri/Smt.          1."Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble   Vice- Fixed on
     41/Bang/2010     Hasmukh Boriya,   1.P.Madhavi Devi,   the circumstances of the case, President (BZ)    24/05/2013
     (ITA 773/B/10)                        J.M.             there is any mistake apparent
                                        2. A.Mohan          from record        rectifiable u/s
                                          Alankamony,       254(2) of the IT Act, when the
                                          A.M.              Tribunal       adjudicated     the
                                                            Revenue's appeal on the sole
                                                            ground of limitation in favor of
                                                            the Revenue, but not remitted
                                                            back the issue to CIT(A) for
                                                            adjudication on merits when
                                                            such        an       issue      of
                                                            remission/merits was not before
                                                            the Tribunal either by a prayer
                                                            submission or cross objection
                                                            by the Assessee/AR other than
                                                            the only argument to defend his
                                                            ground on technicality?"
                                                            2."Whether, the inclusion of a
                                                            copy of a favourable judgment
                                                            to the assessee on the issue of
                                                            merits in the paper book
                                                            produced before the ITAT
                                                            would amount to be a ground or
                                                            submission        enabling     the
                                                            assessee     to     invoke     the
                                                            rectification jurisdiction of the
                                                            Tribunal, when during the
                                                            course of the hearing there were
                                                            no      such     arguments      or
                                                            submission on merits/remission
                                                            before the Tribunal by the
                                                            Assessee/AR?"




                                                                                                                          13
     CHANDIGARH
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.            Shri . R.K.Garg     S/Shri .             Per J.M.                          Hon'ble Vice   Adjourned
     142/CHD/1999                           1.M.A.Bakshi, VP     1. "Whether, on the facts and in President       sine-dia
     A.Y.97-98                              2. N.K.Saini. A.M.   the circumstances of this case, (Chandigarh)
     ITA 550, 489, 586,                                          the    guarantee    commission
     587 & 588/CHD/99                                            received by the assessees is a
     A.Y.87-88, 90-91,                                           revenue receipt or a capital
     98-99, 1999-2000 &                                          receipt?"
     2000-2001                                                   2. "Whether, the decision of the
                                                                 Tribunal in assessee's own case
                                                                 for the assessment year 88-89 to
                                                                 the effect that the guarantee
                                                                 commission is a revenue receipt
     ITA No.             Smt. Sunaina                            is inapplicable in view the
     143/CHD/1999        Garg                                    decision of the Hon'ble Madras
     A.Y.97-98                                                   High Court in the case of CIT v.
     ITA Nos. 589, 590                                           Pondicherry            Industrial
     & 591/CHD/2002                                              Promotion Development &
     A.Y. 1998-99,                                               Investment Corporation Ltd.
     1999-2000,                                                  (supra), and the decision of
      2000-2001                                                  Delhi High Court in the case of
                                                                 Suessen Textile Bearings Ltd.
     ITA 503/CHD/2002    Shri . R.K.Garg,                        etc. v. Union of India etc.
     A.Y. 1997-98        & Sons(HUF)                             (supra)?"
                                                                 3. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                 the circumstances of the case,
                                                                 the additional ground raised by
                                                                 the revenue for the assessment
                                                                 year 90-91 only deserves to be
                                                                 admitted and matter for all the
                                                                 assessment years remitted to the
                                                                 CIT(A)      for    giving     an
                                                                 opportunity to the AO to
                                                                 distinguish the two High Courts cases,
                                                                 referred to above notwithstanding the
                                                                 fact that both the Members of the
                                                                 Bench have decided the issue relating
                                                                 to assessability of the guarantee
                                                                 commission on merits?"
                                                                                                                              14
                                                           Per A.M.
                                                           1. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                           the circumstances of the case, it
                                                           could be held that the guarantee
                                                           commission received by the
                                                           assessees against their personal
                                                           assets was a capital receipt?"
                                                           2. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                           the circumstances of the case
                                                           and also in law, the Ld. CIT(A)
                                                           should have provided and
                                                           opportunity of being heard to
                                                           the Assessing Officer when
                                                           there was a specific direction by
                                                           the Tribunal to do so, before
                                                           arriving at a conclusion on the
                                                           basis of judgment of Hon'ble
                                                           Delhi High Court in the case of
                                                           Suessen Textile bearing Ltd.
                                                           and others V Union of India,
                                                           CC2 JJX 0082 and Hon'ble

                                                            Madras High Court in the case
                                                           of CIT V. Pondicherry Indl
                                                           Promotion Development and
                                                           Investment Corp. Ltd. (2000)
                                                           245 ITR 859, that the amount
                                                           received by assessees
                                                           was a capital receipt.
     AMRITSAR
     BENCH
1.   IT(SS)A No.       Sh.Vinod Goel      S/Shri            Shri H.S.Sidhu.                Zonal Vice      Pending for
     14/ASR/2005.                         1. H.S. Sidhu,   1.       "Whether, on the facts President(CZ)   fixation
                                          J.M.             and in the circumstances of
     IT(SS)A           M/s Sidhant        2.Mehar          present case, the issues in the
     No.13/ASR/2005.   Deposits &         Singh,A.M.       present appeals are covered by
                       Advances(P) Ltd.                    the decision of the Hon'ble
                                                           Supreme Court in the case of
     IT(SS)A           M/s Trimurti                        Manish Maheshwary Vs. ACIT
                                                                                                                         15
No.12/ASR/2005   Deposits &          (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) and
                 Advances (P) Ltd.   the decision of the Hon'ble
                                     jurisdictional High Court in
                                     Income tax Appeal No.519 of
                                     2009 decided on 20-7-2010 in
                                     the case of CIT-I, Ludhiana Vs.
                                     Mridula Prop. Dhruv fabics,
                                     Ludhiana?"
                                     2.        "Whether, on the facts
                                     and in the circumstances of the
                                     present case, non-production of
                                     records by the revenue in spite
                                     of various opportunities given
                                     to them, benefit should go to the
                                     revenue or the asessee?"
                                     3.        "Whether, on the facts
                                     and in the circumstances of the
                                     present case, it is mandatory a
                                     pre-requisite       that      the
                                     satisfaction to be recorded in
                                     the cases of persons searched
                                     before issuance of notice under
                                     section 158 BD of the Income
                                     tax Act. 1961 to the assesse i.e.
                                     other person?"
                                         Shri. Mehar Singh,AM.
                                     1.                "Whether on the
                                     facts and on law, valid Block
                                     Assessments can be cancelled,
                                     on the ground of assumed non-
                                     production of record indicating
                                     recording of satisfaction u/s
                                     158BD, in a case where such
                                     satisfaction is duly evidenced by
                                     documents available in the paper
                                     book filed by the Deptt. and
                                     reproduced verbatim in the order
                                     dated 06.12.2006 passed by the
                                     Bench and subsequent M.A.dated
                                                                         16
                                                          21.01.2009, dismissed by the
                                                          Bench, without even considering
                                                          such satisfaction?'
                                                          2.       " Whether, on the facts
                                                          and on law Block Assessments
                                                          can be cancelled by applying
                                                          the decision of jurisdictional
                                                          High Court, relied upon by the
                                                          assessee, which lays down the
                                                          law that satisfaction under
                                                          section 158BD be recorded
                                                          before the conclusion of the
                                                          Block     Assessments      under
                                                          section 158BC of the Act, in the
                                                          absence of vital details of dates
                                                          of completion of such block
                                                          assessment being determinative
                                                          factor, in determining the
                                                          applicability of the said
                                                          decision, where the parties to
                                                          the disputes failed to furnish
                                                          such dates?"
     JAIPUR BENCH
1.   ITA No.        M/s. Mahaveer      S/Shri             Shri R.K. Gupta, JM.                Hon'ble Vice   Pending
     937/Jp/2011    Exports, Jaipur.   1.R.K.Gupta, JM.   1. "Whether, in the facts and       President
                                       2.Sanjay           circumstance, the addition of       (Ahmedabad
                                       Arora,A.M.         Rs.3,58,455/- made by one of        Zone)
                                                          the partners S mt.Kanta
                                                          Nowlkha is liable to be deleted
                                                          or to be confirmed?"
                                                          2. "Whether, in the facts and
                                                          circumstances, the addition of
                                                          Rs. 1,00,000/- each in the name
                                                          of Shri Nem Chand Nowalkha
                                                          and Shri Pankaj Ghiya of the
                                                          assessee firm made as capital
                                                          contribution is liable to be
                                                          deleted or liable to be set aside
                                                          to the file of the Assessing
 


                                                                                                                      17
Officer?"
3. "Whether, in view of the
decision        of      Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court in
case of Kewal Krishan &
Partners, 18 DTR 121 (Raj.) the
entire    capital   contribution
made/contributed     prior    to
commencement of business in
liable to be deleted or to be
confirmed in part and partly to
be set aside to the file of
Assessing Officer ?"

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

2. "Whether, the addition of the
impugned sums as unexplained
credits u/s.68 can be deleted on
the sole ground that the assessee
had no source of income prior
to the date on which the same
were found recorded in the
assessee's books of account,
                                    18
notwithstanding the fact that it
has completely failed to
discharge the burden of
satisfactorily explaining the
nature and source thereof?"
3. "Whether, the view that a
cash credit recorded in the
books of account of a
partnership firm ostensibly as
capital contributed by a partner
cannot       be     treated     as
unexplained u/s.68 in the hands
of the firm even if the assessee
firm fails to satisfactorily
explain the nature and source
thereof, and more particularly if
its fails to adduce evidence to
establish that the alleged capital
was actually contributed by the
partner, is sustainable in law in
view of the decision by the
Hon'ble jurisdictional high
court in CIT v. Kishorilal
Santoshilal (1995)216 ITR 9
(Raj.)?"

4.1 "Whether, can capital be
contributed by a partner to a
partnership-firm prior to the
coming into existence of the
said firm? In any case, whether
the claim of capital contribution
by way of transfer of goods on
June 1,2006 can be accepted in
view of the fact that the
assessee-firm itself came into
existence     only    on     July
11,2006?"

                                     19
                                                           "Is the remand in the case of
                                                           two cash credits of Rs. 1 lac
                                                           each in the name of two
                                                           partners justified under the facts
                                                           and circumstances of the case,
                                                           even as contemplated by the
                                                           Hon'ble jurisdictional high
                                                           court in the case of Rajshree
                                                           Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CIT
                                                           (2002) 256 ITR 331 (Raj.)?"




2.   ITA No.363 &      M/s Escorts Heart S/Shri            Shri R.K.Gupta,J.M.              Hon'ble Vice      Pending
     326/Jp/2011       Institute &       1. R.K.Gupta,     1.     Whether in the facts and President (Delhi
     A.Y.2008-09.      Research             JM.            circumstances of the case, the Zone)
                       Centre,Jaipur.    2. SanjayArora,   provisions of section 194J are
     ITA               Escort Heart         AM.            applicable on the payments
     No.1123/Jp/2011   Super Speciality                    made to blood bank ?"
     A.Y.2009-10.      Hospital                            2.      Whether in the facts and
                       Ltd.,Jaipur.                        circumstances of the case, the
                                                           provisions of section 192 or
                                                           section 194J are applicable in
                                                           case of retainer doctors ?

                                                           3.      Whether in the facts and
                                                           circumstances of the case, on
                                                           the mark up/profits earned by
                                                           Fortis Health World Ltd.
                                                           (FHWL) on sale of medicines to
                                                           the assessee is a commission
                                                           chargeable to tax under section
                                                           194H or is a sale on which
                                                           provisions of section194H are
                                                           not applicable?
                                                           4.      Whether in the facts and
                                                           circumstances of the case, on
                                                                                                                        20
the    mark      up/profits    the
provisions of section 194C can
be invoked by the Tribunal
where neither this is a case of
department nor of the assessee ?
    Shri Sanjay Arora, AM.
1.1 Whether the payments to
the blood banks for carrying out
investigation procedures, are, in
the facts and circumstances of
the case, made by the assessee-
hospital or by its patients?
1.2 Whether, while deciding an
issue under appeal, the tribunal
required      to     apply      its
independent mind thereon,
without being influenced by the
decision by the first appellate
authority for a subsequent year,
particularly when the same was
not pressed during hearing and,
accordingly, the parties not
heard thereon?
2. I am in agreement with the
Question No. 2 as proposed by
my ld. Brother, JM.
3.1       Whether, can on the
admitted set of facts brought on
record by the parties, the
inferential finding/s by the
Appellate Tribunal differ from
that of either party before it, or
is it to necessarily match
therewith? Further, is not the
tribunal duty bound to, in
deciding an issue before it,
apply the law as applicable to
the facts found by it, including
such inferential finding/s?
                                      21
                                                           3.2     Whether, in the facts and
                                                           circumstances of the case, the
                                                           supply of medicines by Fortis
                                                           Health World Ltd.(FHWL) to
                                                           the assessee-company for its
                                                           IPD Pharmacy, constitutes an
                                                           independent business being
                                                           carried on by FHWL, or is the
                                                           said supply only the result of
                                                           the work carried out by its
                                                           relevant manpower, whose
                                                           services       stand       already
                                                           contracted to the assessee
                                                           company and subject to tax
                                                           deduction u/s. 194C of the Act?
3.   ITA No.           Smt. Asha        S/Shri             Whether in the facts and             Shri            Pending
     110/JP/2012       Mandowra,Jaipur. 1.R.K.Gupra,       circumstances of the present         G.D.Agarwal,
                                          JM.              case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is     Vice-
                                        2.Sanjay Arora,    liable to be confirmed or liable     President(DZ)
                                          AM.              to be restored to his file to pass
                                                           a fresh order ?
4.   MA. No.           Shri Deepak       S/Shri            Whether in the facts and             Shri            Pending
     11/JP/2011        Delela,Jaipur.    1.R.K.Gupta,      circumstances of the present         G.D.Agarwal,
     (A.O.of ITA No.                       JM.             case, the order of Tribunal in       Vice-
     13/JP/10)                           2.Sanjay Arora,   Misc.                 Application    President(DZ)
                                           AM.             No.11/JP/2011 arising out of
                                                           the order of the Tribunal in ITA
                                                           No.13/JP/2010       relating    to
                                                           Assessment Year 2006-07 is
                                                           liable to be allowed by recalling
                                                           the order of the Tribunal or to
                                                           be dismissed.?




                                                                                                                          22
     JODHPUR
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.362(JU)/10   Smt. Supriya       S/Shri              "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble         Vice- Adjourned
                         Kanwar, Jodhpur.   1. JoginderSingh,   circumstances of the case, President             sine-die
                                               J.M.             solitary transaction of purchase (Mumbai Zone)
                                            2. K.G.Bansal,      and sale of the same
                                               A.M.             agricultural land with standing
                                                                crops situated beyond the
                                                                prescribed     municipal limits,
                                                                amounts to adventure in the
                                                                nature of trade?"
                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                           (Joginder Singh,JM)
                                                                "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                the circumstances of the case
                                                                and sale of five pieces of
                                                                agricultural land with standing
                                                                crop, by way of separate
                                                                conveyance deeds, beyond the
                                                                prescribed distance from any
                                                                municipal council, amount to
                                                                transactions on capital account
                                                                or adventure in the nature of
                                                                trade?"
                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                                  (K.G.Bansal)
                                                                                         A.M




                                                                                                                             23
     RAJKOT BENCH
1.   ITA                Atul Auto         S/Shri              "Whether on the facts and Hon'ble              Vice Fixed on
     No.921/Rjt/2010    Ltd.Rajkot.       1.T.K.Sharma,       circumstances of the case, the President,           02/05/2013
                                          J.M.                ld.CIT(A) is justified in directing (Ahmedabad
                                          2.D.K.Srivastava,   the AO to grant the exemption Zone)
                                          A.M.                of Rs.22,96,155/- u/s.10(34) of
                                                              the I.T.Act, 1961 in respect of
                                                              dividend received by the
                                                              assessee in respect of shares
                                                              held in subsidiary company and
                                                              reflected in the balance-sheet
                                                              under the head investments.
                                                                               Sd/-
                                                                        (T.K.Sharma, JM)
                                                              "whether unreported judgment,
                                                              which was never cited by the
                                                              parties not otherwise brought to
                                                              the notice of the Bench not to
                                                              the notice of the Member
                                                              proposing the order, can be used
                                                              by another Member for passing
                                                              dissenting order without giving
                                                              any opportunity in this behalf to
                                                              the parties?
                                                                                  Sd/-
                                                                        (D.K.Srivastava, AM)
2.   ITA No.            Shri Shirish M.   S/Shri              Whether on the facts and              Hon'ble    Vice Fixed
     342/Rjt/2012       Ravani,           1.T.K.Sharma, JM.   circumstances of the case, the ld.    President,      02/05/2013
                        Jamnagar.         2.D.K.Srivastava,   CIT(A) is justified in deleting the   (Ahmedabad
                                          AM.                 disallowance of interest of Rs.       Zone)
                                                              3,22,091/- which was paid on
                                                              loans taken from family members
                                                              u/s 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act,
                                                              1961?"
3.   MA. Nos. 61 to      Shambhubhai      S/Shri              "Whether on the facts and             Hon'ble    Vice
     66/Rjt/2010(A.O. of Mahadev Ahir,    1.T.K.Sharma, JM.   circumstances of the case, all the    President,      Fixed on
     ITA Nos. 637 to     Gandhidham.      2.D.K.Srivastava,   six Miscellaneous Appelications       (Ahmedabad      02/05/2013
     639 & 707 to                         AM.                 filed by the Revenue should be        Zone)
                                                              dismissed or be allowed?"
     709/Rjt/2010)

                                                                                                                                 24
4.   IT(SS)A No. 1 &   Shri Dipak        S/Shri              "Whether on the facts and               Hon'ble    Vice Fixed on
     2/Rjt/2007        Kantilal Takwani, 1.T.K.Sharma, JM.   circumstances of the case, the ld.      President,      03/05/2013
                       Jamnagar.         2.D.K.Srivastava,   JM is correct in upholding the          (Ahmedabad
                                         AM.                 order of ld. CIT(A) cancelling the      Zone)
                                                             penalty levied u/s 271 D of Rs.
                                                             14,29,81,658/- and u/s 271E of Rs.
                                                             10,97,67,135/- or the ld. AM in
                                                             restoring both the appeals to the
                                                             file of the ld. CIT(A) for
                                                             examining the character of
                                                             loan/deposits in the light of
                                                             material available on record and
                                                             thereafter decide the issue of levy
                                                             of penalty on merits."
                                                                                    Sd/-
                                                                            ( T.K.Sharma, JM)

                                                             1."Whether the scope of section
                                                             275(1)(a) is limited, in terms of the
                                                             language employed therein, to
                                                             initiating action for imposition of
                                                             penalties     in    the      relevant
                                                             assessment to those cases alone
                                                             which fall u/s 271 or extends to
                                                             initiating action for imposition of
                                                             other penalties enumerated under
                                                             Chapter XXI of the Income-tax
                                                             Act also?

                                                             2. Whether section 275(1)(a)
                                                             debars initiation of action in the
                                                             relevant assessment for imposition
                                                             of penalties u/s 271D/271E even if
                                                             such action is integrally related to
                                                             assessment?

                                                             3. Whether, on the facts and in the
                                                             circumstances of the case, the
                                                             Assessing Officer has, vide Para
                                                             19 of the block assessment order,
                                                             initiated action for the imposition
                                                             of impugned penalties in the

                                                                                                                                  25
relevant assessment, which was
subsequently subject matter of
appeal before the CIT(A)/ITAT
and, if so, whether the cases under
appeal would fall u/s 275(1)(a)?

4. Whether all the conditions laid
down in clause (a)of sub-section
(1) of section 275 of the Income-
tax Act for its applicability are
satisfied on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case under
appeal and, if so, whether the case
falls under that clause for the
purpose of limitation?

5. Whether clause (c) of sub-
section (1) of section 275 can be
invoked in those cases also in
which action for imposition of
penalty has been initiated in the
relevant assessment, which is
subsequently subject matter of
appeal before the CIT(A) or the
Appellate Tribunal?

6. Whether the Ld. Commissioner
(Appeals) is justified, on the acts
and in the circumstances of the
case, in applying the bar of
limitation contained in section
275(1)(c) and thereby holding the
levy of impugned penalties as time
barred without first examining the
applicability of section 275(1)(a)?

7. Whether, the correctness of levy
of penalty can be adjudicated by
this Tribunal on merits in the
absence of any ground of appeal in
that behalf and adjudication by the
first appellate authority, i.e.,

                                      26
CIT(A) and also in the absence of
relevant materials on record?

8. Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the
issue of levy of penalty on merits
requires to be considered by the
CIT(A) and therefore matter is
required to be restored to the file
of the CIT(A) for decision on
merits?
                       Sd/-
             ( D.K.Srivastava,AM)




                                      27
                               INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

                            LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.04.2013.

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




                                                                                                                              28
     CHENNAI
     BENCHES
1.   67/Mds/2012   Shri C.              S/Shri                "Whether keeping in view the findings of the Dr. O. K.                Heard on
                   Srikanth,Chennai.    1.N.S.Saini,A.M.      CIT(A), there was any mistake apparent from Narayanan, Vice           18/02/2013
                   & M/s Atlus          2.V.Durga Rao, J.M.   the records rectifiable u/s 254(2) of the Act President, (CZ).
                   Securities Trading                         in the order dated 10.2.2012 passed by the
                   (P) Ltd.                                   Tribunal wherein the Tribunal proceeded on
                                                              the assumption that the facts of the case as
                                                              brought out by the Assessing Officer in the
                                                              assessment order were undisputed facts of
                                                              the case ?
                                                                              Sd/-
                                                                            A.M.


                                                              "Whether, on the facts and in the
                                                              circumstances of the case, the Miscellaneous
                                                              Applications filed by the assesses do come
                                                              within the purview of Section 254(2) of the
                                                              Income Tax Act, 1961 or not?"
                                                                                Sd/-
                                                                               J.M.




                                                                                                                               29
 
 
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