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
|
