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: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
 
 
« 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 06.05.2012
May, 30th 2012
                       INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

               STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.05.2012


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


     MUMBAI BENCH


1.   ITA No.                 M/s Kaira Can    S/Shri.              Reference dt. 25.11.2008 u/s Hon'ble Zonal Vice-       Fixed        on
     6987/Mum/2003           Company Ltd.     1. Sunil Kumar       255(4) of the Income Tax Act President                 23.07.2012
     ITA No. 5280 &                           Yadav, J.M.          made afresh by S/Shri. Sunil
     5281/Mum/2004                            2. V.K.Gupta, A.M.   Kumar Yadav, J.M. and V.K.
     A.Y. 1996-97 to 1998-                                         Gupta, A.M. is as under.
     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




                                                                                                                                 1
                                                                  paid to the lessor as a revenue
                                                                  expenditure?"




2.   ITA Nos. 525 to     Mrs. Sumanlata   S/Shri.                 1. "Whether, non-issuance of the Zonal Vice-       Fixed on
     530/Mum/2008,       Bansal, Mumbai   1. R.S.Padvekar, J.M.   notice as provided in Sub.-sec.(2) President(MZ)   09.07.2012
     A.Ys.1999-2000 to                    2.B.Ramakotaiah,        to Section 143 of the I.T. Act in
     2004-05                              A.M.                    the case of assessment framed
                                                                  u/sec.153A, in consequence of
                                                                  search under sec. 132, is merely
                                                                  an irregularity and the same is
                                                                  curable?"

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

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




                                                                                                                            2
4.   ITA 6484/Mum/2009     M/s. Heritage      S/Shri.                 "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri.R.S.Syal, A.M.   Fixed on
                           Housing            1.Rajendra Singh,       circumstances of the case and                           22.06.2012
                           Development        A.M.                    after considering the various
                           Corporation        2.Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.   decisions of the co-ordinate
                                                                      Benches of the Tribunal cited
                                                                      before the Bench, can it be said
                                                                      that the order of AO had not
                                                                      merged with the order of CIT(A)
                                                                      on all aspects including quantum
                                                                      of deduction in relation to claim
                                                                      of deduction under section 80IB,
                                                                      which had been disallowed by AO
                                                                      and on appeal, it had been allowed
                                                                      fully by CIT(A)".

                                                                      "Whether, on the facts of
                                                                      circumstances of the case the
                                                                      order of the Assessing Officer
                                                                      deemed to have merged with the
                                                                      order of the CIT(A) on the issue
                                                                      of allocation of cost/value of FSI
                                                                      towards commercial building."
     PUNE BENCH

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

                                                                      2. "In the facts and circumstances
                                                                      of the case, whether the




                                                                                                                                     3
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."




                                         4
     DELHI BENCH

1.   ITA              No. Bhagwati Prasad      S/Shri.              "Whether, on facts             and Hon'ble President,     Fixed on
     1868/Del/2011        Maheswari            1.I.P.Bansal, J.M.   circumstances of the case and in I.T.A.T.                 20.07.2012
                                               2.B.K.Haldar, A.M.   law the impugned issue should be
                                                                    restored back to the Assessing
                                                                    Officer with a direction that both
                                                                    the assessee and Assessing Officer
                                                                    should comply with the directions
                                                                    given in the earlier order of the
                                                                    Tribunal dated 8th June,2007 or
                                                                    the same be decided against the
                                                                    appellant."
     LUCKNOW BENCH

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




                                                                                                                                     5
                                                               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?"

2.   ITA No.               M/s Zazsons    S/Shri.              "Whether, on the facts and the Zonal Vice-President   Adjourned Sine
     219/LKW/2009 and      Exports Ltd.   1. I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as well                     die
     C.O.No.23/Lck/ 2009   Kanpur         2.N.K.Saini, A.M.    as in law, the Revenue's ground
     A.Y.2005-06                                               Nos.3 to 6 be allowed or not?"




                                                                                                                            6
3.   ITA 318/Luck/2011   Late Jain Narain   S/Shri.              "Whether under the facts and Hon'ble Vice-                   To be fixed
     A.Y.2001-02         Upadhyay           1.Sunil Kumar        circumstances of the present case, President (LZ)
                                            Yadav, J.M.          penalty under section 271 (1) ( C )
                                            2.B.R.Jain, A.M.     of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is
                                                                 sustainable in the eyes of law?"

4.   SP No.03/Lkw/2012   Smt.Uma Pandey,    S/Shri.              SP No.03/Lkw/2012                       Hon'ble President,   To be fixed
     (A/o ITA                               Sunil Kumar Yadav,                                           I.T.A.T.
     188/Lkw/2010)                          J.M.                 "Whether, the stay earlier granted
     A.Y. 2007-08                           2.B.R.Jain, A.M.     by the Tribunal can be extended
     SP.No.04/Lkw/2012   M/s.State Urban                         till disposal of the appeal in a case
     (A/o ITA            Development                             where the appeal has been heard
     103/Lkw/2012)       Agency.                                 by the Tribunal and is pending
     A.Y. 2007-08                                                with the Members for order?"

                                                                                        Sd/-
                                                                                       J.M.

                                                                 "Whether, on the peculiar facts,
                                                                 circumstances of this case and in
                                                                 law, there is any justification in
                                                                 extending the stay of the disputed
                                                                 demand that already had run
                                                                 beyond 365 days or the
                                                                 application so made by the
                                                                 assessee is liable to be rejected?"

                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                                       A.M.

                                                                 SP No.04/Lkw/2012

                                                                 "Whether, under the facts and
                                                                 circumstances of the case, the



                                                                                                                                     7
                                                               outstanding demand can be stayed
                                                               outrightly or subject to payment
                                                               of part of demand in instalments
                                                               as proposed?"
                                                                     Sd/-                 Sd/-
                                                                    J.M.                 A.M
5.   ITA No. 188/Lkw/2010 Smt. Uma Pandey   S/Shri.            "Whether, under the facts and Shri.G.D.Agarwal,    To be fixed
     A.Y. 2007-08                           1.Sunil Kumra      circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Vice-
                                            Yadav, J.M.        payments received by the assessee President (LZ)
                                            2.B.R.Jain, A.M.   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




                                                                                                                         8
                                                            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
     AGRA BENCH

1.   ITA No.         J.M.Agarwal       S/Shri.              1. "Whether, in the given facts Shri.G.D.Agarwal,   Adjourned Sine
     92/Agr/2008 &   Tabacco Co. &     1.Hari Om Maratha,   and circumstances of the case Hon'ble Vice-         - die
     93/Agr/2008     J.M.Agarwal       J.M.                 when disturbed. The AO has not President (DZ)
     A.Y.1998-99     Tabacco Co. (P)   2. Sanjay Arora,     the Trading results and the
                     Ltd.              A.M.                 assessee has explained certain
                                                            incriminating Evidences found by
                                                            the Central Excise Department,
                                                            particularly when the purchases
                                                            and sales are found fully vouched
                                                            and     verifiable,  the    entire
                                                            Investment can be treated as
                                                            excess sale and be added to the
                                                            total income of the assessee or
                                                            not?"


                                                            2. "Whether, in a case of a
                                                            Company the 3 telephone and car
                                                            running   expenses   can     be




                                                                                                                       9
                                                                             disallowed and added in the hands
                                                                             of the company on account of
                                                                             personal user of telephone/car by
                                                                             its director (s) or not?"



                                                                             3. "Whether, when the assessee's
                                                                             trading account has been accepted
                                                                             in toto, and the GRs were
                                                                             explained with reference to books
                                                                             of accounts, the non-production of
                                                                             copies of GRs can lead to
                                                                             addition, as has been done in this
                                                                             case or not?"

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

     PATNA
     BENCH ( Circuit
     Bench, Ranchi)
1    MA No.                    Shri. Ghasi Ram       S/Shri.                 "Whether, on the facts and in   the Hon'ble Zonal Vice   Pending for
     11 (Pat) / 2007 arising   Agarwal, Ranchi       1. B. R. Mittal, J.M.   circumstances of the case,      the President (KZ)       hearing.
     out in                                          2. B.K. Haldar, A.M.    application of the department   for
     IT(SS)A No.                                                             recall of the order      of     the




                                                                                                                                            10
    45/Pat/05) A.Y. 86-87                                                Tribunal dt. 21st June, 2006
    to 97-98                                                             passed in IT(ss)A No. 91(Pat)/05
                                                                         to delete the amount of
                                                                         Rs.45,823/- is to be allowed as
                                                                         held by the learned Accountant
                                                                         Member or is to be rejected as
                                                                         held by the learned Judicial
                                                                         Member."


2   Int. Tax Appeal         M/s Coalsesce        S/Shri.                 "Whether, in the facts and Hon'ble Zonal Vice-     Pending for
    Nos. 06 to 08/Pat/06    Investment (P) Ltd., 1. B. R. Mittal, J.M.   circumstances of the case, the President           hearing.
    A.Ys.1997-98 to 1999-   Ranchi               2. B.K. Haldar, A.M.    assessee was liable under the
    2000                                                                 Interest Tax Act to pay interest tax
                                                                         on the gross interest received on
                                                                         the loans and advances granted by
                                                                         it during the impugned assessment
                                                                         years."

    GUWAHATI
    BENCHES
1   ITA 47, 48 and          M/s Purbanchal        S/Shri.                1. "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble President,   Not yet fixed.
    49(Gau)/2004            Safety Glassess (P)   1.Hemant Sausarkar,    circumstances of the case the Ld. I.T.A.T.
    A.Y.1996-97, 1997-98    Ltd., Guwahati.       J.M.                   CIT(A) was justified in deleting
    &                                             2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.    the additions made by the A.O.
    1998-99                                                              under section 69 of the Act as
                                                                         undisclosed investment amounting
                                                                         to Rs. 9,21,461/-, Rs.2,20,990 and
                                                                         Rs.3,66,526/- for the assessment
                                                                         years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-
                                                                         99 respectively on the ground that
                                                                         the reassessments made by the
                                                                         A.O. for the assessment years in




                                                                                                                                  11
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




                                     12
                                                                       made by the A.O. is justified?"

                                                                       As per the order dt.16.04.2008
                                                                       of the Hon'ble President
                                                                       "All the three questions would be
                                                                       considered u/s 255(4) by the
                                                                       President."
2.   ITA Nos. 96, 97 &       Brooke Bond India   S/Shri.               1." Whether, the learned CIT(A) Shri. Pramod Kumar,   Adj. Sine -die
     98(Gau)/2002            Ltd., Calcutta.     1.Hemant Sausarkar,   has erred in law and in facts in A.M.
     A.Y.1990-91, 1991-92,                       J.M.                  directing the A.O. to consider the
     1992-93                                     2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   income from interest and dividend
                                                                       as business income for the
                                                                       purpose of eligible deduction u/s
                                                                       32AB of the Act, in view of the
                                                                       decision in the case of CIT Vs.
                                                                       Dinjoy Tea Estate (P) Ltd. (1997)
                                                                       224 ITR 263 (Gau), 271 ITR 123
                                                                       (Cal), 273 ITR 470 (Mad) and 224
                                                                       ITR 263 (Gau)?"

                                                                       2. "Whether, this Bench of the
                                                                       Tribunal working under the
                                                                       jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
                                                                       Guawahati High Court can allow
                                                                       the claim of the assessee that
                                                                       income from interest and dividend
                                                                       is to be taken as business income
                                                                       for the purpose of eligible
                                                                       deduction u/s 32 AB of the Act in
                                                                       view of the decisions in the cases
                                                                       of (i) Britania Industries Ltd. Vs.
                                                                       JCIT (2004) 271 ITR 123 (Cal)
                                                                       and (ii) DCIT Vs.United Nilgiris




                                                                                                                                   13
                                                                    Tea Estate Co. Ltd.(2005) 273
                                                                    ITR 470 (Mad)?"


                                                                    3. "Whether, on the facts and
                                                                    circumstances of the case the
                                                                    claim      of    expenditure     of
                                                                    Rs.94,363/- and Rs.1,26,718/-
                                                                    attributable to the foreign tour of
                                                                    Mrs. R. Sen, wife of the director,
                                                                    Mr. D. Sen, was not wholly and
                                                                    exclusively for the purpose of
                                                                    business?"


                                                                    4. "Whether, in view of change of
                                                                    stand by the assessee regarding
                                                                    nature and purpose of expenditure
                                                                    taken before the Ld.CIT(A) for
                                                                    the first time the issue was
                                                                    required to be restored to the A.O.
                                                                    for fresh adjudication after
                                                                    enquiring into the claim of the
                                                                    assessee?"


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

                                                                    (2)    "Whether, in view of the
                                                                    decision in the case of CIT Vs




                                                                                                                                14
                                                                         Down Town Hospital Ltd. 251
                                                                         ITR 683 (Gau), the issue was
                                                                         required to be restored to the
                                                                         learned     CIT(A)    for   fresh
                                                                         adjudication after ascertaining
                                                                         whether all the conditions u/s 80
                                                                         IB are fulfilled?"


5.   ITA No.161/Gau/2003      M/s 3R, Gauwahati. S/Shri                  1. "Whether in the facts and Shri. D.K.Tyagi, J.M.        Not yet fixed
     Block period f 1989-90                      1. Hement Sausarkar,    circumstances of these cases the
     to 1998-99 & 1999-                          J.M.                    block    assessments   can    be
     2000.                    M/s Panbazar       2. B.R.Kaushik, A.M.    considered invalid?"
                              Diagnostic Centre,
     ITA No.162/Gau/2004      Guwahati.                                                                        ------ do -------   Not yet fixed
     Block period 1989-90                                                2. "Whether, in the facts and
     to 1998-99 & 1999-                                                  circumstances of these cases it can
     2000                                                                be held that the A.O. did not bring
                                                                         on record the prima facie evidence
                                                                         for invoking jurisdiction and
                                                                         initiation of proceedings u/s 158



                                                                         BD of the Act?"



     CHENNAI BENCH

1.   ITA 493/Chenn/2010       Dr. K. Senthilnatha   S/Shri.              1."Whether the payment of Shri. O.K.Narayanan,            To be fixed
     A.Y.2004-05                                    1.Hari Om Maratha,   Rs.18,41,787/- made to CMDA Hon'ble Vice-
     ITA 494/Chenn/2010                             J.M.                 under the provisions of Section President, (CZ)
     A.Y.2005-06                                    2.N.S.Saini, A.M.    133-A of the Tamil Nadu Town
     ITA 495/Chenn/2010                                                  and Country Planning Act, 1971
     A.Y.2006-07                                                         (as amended vide amending Acts




                                                                                                                                         15
                                                              31 of 2000, 17 of 2001 and 7 of
                                                              2002), which was not refundable
                                                              to the assessee forms part of the
                                                              cost of hospital building to the
                                                              assessee or not under section 43
                                                              (1) of the Act?"
                                                              2."Whether, the assessee was
                                                              entitled to depreciation under
                                                              section 32 of the Act in respect of
                                                              the entire cost of hospital building
                                                              including the payment made to
                                                              CMDA, which was used by it for
                                                              its business purpose or not?"


     BANGALORE
     BENCH
1.   MP.No 41/Bang/2010 Shri Mahesh       S/Shri/Smt.          1."Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble      Vice- Fixed on
     (ITA 773/B/10)     Hasmukh Boriya,   1.P.Madhavi Devi,   the circumstances of the case, President (BZ)       08.06.2012
                                          J.M.                there is any mistake apparent from
                                          2. A.Mohan          record rectifiable u/s 254(2) of
                                          Alankamony, A.M.    the IT Act, when the Tribunal
                                                              adjudicated the Revenue's appeal
                                                              on the sole ground of limitation in
                                                              favour of the Revenue, but not
                                                              remitted back the issue to CIT(A)
                                                              for adjudication on merits when
                                                              such an issue of remission/merits
                                                              was not before the Tribunal either
                                                              by a prayer submission or cross
                                                              objection by the Assessee/AR
                                                              other than the only argument to
                                                              defend       his    ground       on




                                                                                                                        16
                                                             technicality?"

                                                             2."Whether, the inclusion of a
                                                             copy of a favourable judgement to
                                                             the assessee on the issue of merits
                                                             in the paperbook produced before
                                                             the ITAT would amount to be a
                                                             ground or submission enabling the
                                                             assessee to invoke the rectification
                                                             jurisdiction of the Tribunal, when
                                                             during the course of the hearing
                                                             there were no such arguments or
                                                             submission on merits/remission
                                                             before the Tribunal by the
                                                             Assessee/AR?"
     COCHIN BENCH
1.   ITA                 P.K.Kannan   S/Shri.                "Whether, the provisio can Shri.N.Barathvaja   Adj. Sine -die
     No.1004/Coch/2008                1.N.Vijaykumaran,      override the main Section in Sankar ­VP(BZ)
     A.Y. 2005-06                     J.M.                   respect of Section 40(a) as per the
                                      2.Sanjay Arora, A.M.   amendment by the Finance Act,
                                                             2004 & 2007 with respect to
                                                             Section 194C with effect from
                                                             01.04.05         to       01.06.07
                                                             respectively."

                                                                               Sd/-
                                                                              A.M.

                                                             1. "Whether, the provision of sec.
                                                             194C(2) of the Act is applicable to
                                                             the assessee contractor for the
                                                             relevant year; the satisfaction of
                                                             the financial criteria specified in




                                                                                                                  17
                                                                    the provision being an undisputed
                                                                    fact?"


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


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


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




                                                                                                                              18
                                                                     1"Whether, on facts, and in the
                                                                     circumstances of the case, penalty
                                                                     u/s.271D to the extent of Rs.79.40
                                                                     lacs and Rs.15.25 lacs for the two
                                                                     consecutive years, is liable to be
                                                                     levied, or not?
                                                                     2."Whether, on facts and in the
                                                                     circumstances of the case, penalty
                                                                     levied u/s.271D to the extent of
                                                                     Rs.49.40 lacs (for A.Y. 2005-06),
                                                                     is liable to be deleted, or restored
                                                                     back to the file of the assessing
                                                                     authority for the necessary factual
                                                                     determination, whereupon only
                                                                     the law can be applied?"

                                                                                    Sd/-
                                                                                   A.M.

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

                                                                     2. "Whether under the facts and
                                                                     circumstances of the case, since




                                                                                                                           19
                                                              the receipts issued in respect of
                                                              the said "Corpus Fund" was
                                                              prepared by the employees of the
                                                              society, an enquiry was still
                                                              required to decide the nature of
                                                              the said "Corpus Fund"?

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

     RAJKOT
     BENCH

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


                                                              "Whether, on the facts and in the
                                                              circumstances of the case the
                                                              addition of Rs. 2,60,000/- in
                                                              proprietary business namely M/s.
                                                              Associated Apparels which was
                                                              set up by the assessee representing
                                                              himself      before      concerned




                                                                                                                         20
                                                                        authority as R.P. Pandya should
                                                                        be deleted or setaside to the file of
                                                                        A.O. for ascertaining the actual
                                                                        amount of investment in shed
                                                                        machinery etc.

2.   ITA 307/Rjt/2011         Shri. Ashwinkumar   S/Shri .              "Whether, on the facts and Shri. G.C. Gupta,       Yet to be fixed
                              S. Kotecha          1.T.K.Sharma, J.M.    circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Vice-
                                                  2. A.L.Gehlot, A.M.   appeal of the assessee for the President (AZ)
                                                                        Assessment Year 2005-06 be
                                                                        dismissed or addition sustained
                                                                        by ld.CIT(A), be reduced to
                                                                        Rs.29,325/-"
     CHANDIGARH
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.                  Shri . R.K.Garg     S/Shri .              Per J.M.                            Hon'ble Vice   Fixed on
     142/CHD/1999                                 1.M.A.Bakshi, VP      1. "Whether, on the facts and in President         27.07.2012
     A.Y.97-98                                    2. N.K.Saini. A.M.    the circumstances of this case, the (Chandigarh)
     ITA 550, 489, 586, 587                                             guarantee commission received by
     & 588/CHD/99                                                       the assessees is a revenue receipt
     A.Y.87-88, 90-91, 98-                                              or a capital receipt?"
     99, 1999-2000 & 2000-
     2001                                                               2. "Whether, the decision of the
                                                                        Tribunal in assessee's own case
                                                                        for the assessment year 88-89 to
                                                                        the effect that the guarantee
                                                                        commission is a revenue receipt is
                                                                        inapplicable in view the decision
                                                                        of the Hon'ble Madras High Court
     ITA No.                  Smt. Sunaina Garg                         in the case of CIT v. Pondicherry
     143/CHD/1999                                                       Industrial              Promotion
     A.Y.97-98                                                          Development      &     Investment
     ITA Nos. 589, 590 &                                                Corporation Ltd. (supra), and the




                                                                                                                                 21
591/CHD/2002                            decision of Delhi High Court in
A.Y. 1998-99,                           the case of Suessen Textile
1999-2000,                              Bearings Ltd. etc. v. Union of
2000-2001                               India etc. (supra)?"
                   Shri . R.K.Garg, &
ITA 503/CHD/2002   Sons(HUF)            3. "Whether, on the facts and in
A.Y. 1997-98                            the circumstances of the case, the
                                        additional ground raised by the
                                        revenue for the assessment year
                                        90-91 only deserves to be
                                        admitted and matter for all the
                                        assessment years remitted to the
                                        CIT(A) for giving an opportunity
                                        to the AO to distinguish the two
                                        High Courts cases, referred to
                                        above notwithstanding the fact
                                        that both the Members of the
                                        Bench have decided the issue
                                        relating to assessability of the
                                        guarantee commission on merits?"

                                        Per A.M.


                                        1. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                        the circumstances of the case, it
                                        could be held that the guarantee
                                        commission received by the
                                        assessees against their personal
                                        assets was a capital receipt?"


                                        2. "Whether, on the facts and in




                                                                             22
                                                                 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 President   Adjourned
     14/ASR/2005.                          1. H.S. Sidhu, J.M.                                                                Sine-die
                                           2.Mehar Singh, A.M.   1."Whether, on the facts and in
     IT(SS)A           M/s Sidhant                               the circumstances of present case,
     No.13/ASR/2005.   Deposits &                                the issues in the present appeals
                       Advances(P) Ltd.                          are covered by the decision of the
                                                                 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
     IT(SS)A           M/s Trimurti                              case of Manish Maheshwary Vs.
     No.12/ASR/2005    Deposits &                                ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC)
                       Advances (P) Ltd.                         and the decision of the Hon'ble
                                                                 jurisdictional High Court in
                                                                 Income tax Appeal No.519 of
                                                                 2009 decided on 20-7-2010 in the







                                                                                                                                   23
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




                                        24
by the Deptt. and reproduced
verbatim in the order dated
06.12.2006 passed by the Bench
and     subsequent   M.A.dated
21.01.2009, dismissed by the
Bench, without even considering
such satisfaction?'



2." Whether, on the facts and on
law Block Assessments can be
cancelled by applying the decision
of jurisdictional High Court,
relied upon by the assessee, which
lays down the law that satisfaction
under section 158BD be recorded
before the conclusion of the Block
Assessments under section 158BC
of the Act, in the absence of vital
details of dates of completion of
such block assessment being
determinative       factor,      in
determining the applicability of
the said decision, where the
parties to the disputes failed to
furnish such dates?"




                                      25
     JODHPUR BENCH


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

                                                                                         Sd/-
                                                                                   (Joginder Singh)
                                                                                         J.M.

                                                                   "Whether, on the facts and in the
                                                                   circumstances of the case and sale
                                                                   of five pieces of agricultural land
                                                                   with standing crop, by way of
                                                                   separate    conveyance       deeds,
                                                                   beyond the prescribed distance
                                                                   from any municipal council,
                                                                   amount to transactions on capital
                                                                   account or adventure in the nature
                                                                   of trade?"

                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                                   (K.G.Bansal)
                                                                                     A.M.




                                                                                                                              26
                             INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI


                     LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.05.2012.



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

1.   ITA No.            M/s. Shaw           S/Shri.                "Whether on the facts and in the Zonal Vice-                 Heard on
     210/Kol/2008       Wallace Financial   1.R.K.Gupta, J.M.      circumstances of the case, the assessment in President(MZ)   01.11.2011
     A.Y. 2004-05       Services Ltd.       2.Rajendra Singh, A.M. the case of assessee for A.Y. 2004-05 can be
                                                                   said to have been made on a non existent
                                                                   company and if so, whether the same can be
                                                                   quashed?

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

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




                                                                                                                                  27
     BILASPUR BENCH

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


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




                                                                                                                                    28
     LUCKNOW BENCH

1.   ITA 336/Luck/2011   Vishnu Jaiswal     S/Shri.                ITA 336/Luck/2011                                Hon'ble Vice-    Heard on
     A.Y.2006-07                            1.Sunil Kumar Yadav,   Per J.M.                                         President (LZ)   15.03.2012
     ITA 115/Luck/2011   M/s. Dwarkadhish   J.M.
     A.Y.2005-06         Sugar Industries   2.B.R.Jain, A.M.       "Whether addition can be made on account
     ITA 304/Luck/2011   M/s. Pragati                              of unexplained cash credit under section 68
     A.Y. 2005-06        Engineering                               of the Income-tax Act where the creditor is
                         Corpn.                                    failed to explain the source of cash deposited
                                                                   in his account before issuance of cheque of
                                                                   loan amount in favour of the assessee in
                                                                   order to prove his creditworthiness?"
                                                                    Per A.M.
                                                                   "Whether on the          peculiar facts and
                                                                   circumstances and in law the appellant has
                                                                   discharged the onus that lay upon him about
                                                                   the creditworthiness of the transaction of
                                                                   loan credits aggregating to Rs.3.50 lacs and
                                                                   deletion of additions u/s 68 of the I.T. Act,
                                                                   justified?"
                                                                    ITA 115/Luck/2011
                                                                   Per J.M.

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

                                                                   Per A.M.
                                                                   "Whether on the peculiar facts and
                                                                   circumstances and in law the appellant has



                                                                                                                                       29
discharged the onus that lay upon him about
the creditworthiness of the transaction of
loan credits aggregating of Rs.3.30 lacs and
deletion of additions u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, is
justified?"
ITA 304/Luck/2011
Per J.M.

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

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

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




                                                   30
     KOLKATTA BENCH

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


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



     GUWAHATI BENCH

1.   ITA No. 25/Gau/2005   M/s Baid            S/Shri.                 "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri.Pramod          Heard on
     A.Y.1996-97           Commercial          1.Hemant Sausarkar,     circumstances of the case the transport Kumar,A.M.     04.04.2012
                           Enterprises Ltd.,   J.M.                    subsidy is to be treated as capital in nature in
     ITA No. 20/Gau/2005   Guwahati.           2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.     view of decisions in the following cases-
     A.Y.2001-2002         M/s Shiva Sakti                                                                                    Heard on
                           Floor Mills (P)                             i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR 847              04.04.2012
     C.O.No.02/Gau/2005    Ltd., Tinsukia                              (Gau)
                                                                       ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And
                                                                       Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC)




                                                                                                                                31
     ITA No.165/Gau/2004   M/s Virgo                               iii) DCIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003)
     A.Y.2001-2002         Cements Ltd.,                           263 ITR 357 (Gau)                                           Heard on
                           Guwahati.                               iv) CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products Ltd. 251                  03.04.2012
                                                                   ITR 427(SC) and
                                                                   v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT
                                                                   238 ITR 354(Cal).

     CHENNAI BENCH

1.   ITA 1058/Mds/2010     Shri.R.Natarajan   S/Shri.              In view of the facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Vice        Heard on
                                                 1. U.B.S.Bedi,    whether income on account of incentive President (CZ)       18.01.2012
                                                      J.M          pertaining to assessment year 2007-08
                                                 2. A.P.George,    received in the assessment year 2008-09 and
                                                      A.M.         offered by the assessee himself in the return
                                                                   for the year under consideration, when
                                                                   returned income came to be accepted could
                                                                   be directed to be deleted as held by the
                                                                   Accountane Member OR could the
                                                                   assessment framed by accepting the returned
                                                                   income, in the absence of filing of revised
                                                                   return excluding such incentive, in view of
                                                                   the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
                                                                   the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006)
                                                                   284 ITR 323 (SC), be upheld as held by
                                                                   Judicial Member?

     COCHIN BENCH

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



                                                                                                                                 32
                                                            1. "Whether, there is any inconsistency
                                                            between sec.80 HHC (3) and explanation
                                                            thereto?"

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

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

                                                            2. "Whether, the indirect cost that is to be
                                                            reduced from the export turnover of trading
                                                            goods, in terms of s.80HHC(3)(b), is to be
                                                            determined by apportioning such costs in the




                                                                                                                           33
                                                               statutorily prescribed formula of the ratio of
                                                               the said turnover to the total turnover, or is it
                                                               liable to any reduction before applying the
                                                               said ratio thereto?"

                                                               3. "Whether, the reliance by the Revenue on
                                                               the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdiction High
                                                               court in the case of CIT Vs Parry Agro
                                                               Industries Ltd, 257 ITR 41 (Ker), is in the
                                                               facts and circumstances of the case, apposite
                                                               or misplaced?"
                                                                                      Sd/-
                                                                                     A.M.
3.   ITA No.207/Coch/2009 Baby Marine   S/Shri.                1. "Whether, or not the issue of the `indirect Hon'ble Vice-   Heard on
     A.Y. 2001-02         Products      1.N.Vijaykumaran,      exports' by a supporting manufacturer (in President(BZ)        19.03.2012
                                        J.M.                   respect of the turnover disclaimed by the
                                        2.Sanjay Arora, A.M.   export house in its favour) as forming part of
                                                               its export turnover and, thus, exigible for
                                                               deduction under section 80HHC of the Act,
                                                               stands settled by a series of binding
                                                               decisions?"

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

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




                                                                                                                                34
                                                                     with retrospective effect from 1.4.1998) by
                                                                     invoking section 154 of the Act?"

                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                                          A.M.
     AMRITSAR BENCH

1.   ITA.No.378/AR/2009   M/s Ramanujam       S/Shri                    Sh.H.S.Sidhu,J.M.                               Zonal Vice   Heard on
                          Spiritual Public    1.H.S. Sidhu, J.M.                                                        President    15.05.2012
                          Charitable trust.   2. Mehar Singh, A.M.    1. "Whether, on the facts and in the
                                                                     circumstances of the case and the record
                                                                     available, the assessee is entitled for grant of
                                                                     approval of renewal of exemption under
                                                                     section 80G(5) of the Income tax Act,
                                                                     1961?"

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

                                                                      3.     "Whether on the facts and in the
                                                                     circumstances of the case, the learned CIT
                                                                     can refuse the approval of renewal of
                                                                     exemption under section 80G(5) of the



                                                                                                                                       35
Income tax Act, 1961 on the ground that one
of the objects No.4 that the assessee-trust has
been established for a particular religious
purpose for the followers of the deity, who
have to be only Hindus, inspite of the fact
that he has already granted the approval of
renewal of exemption in many times under
section 80G(5) of the Income tax Act,
1961?"
Sh. Mehar Singh, AM.

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

"Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the assesse-trust is
entitled for approval, in terms of original
Trust Deed and the amended one, under
section 80G(5) of the Act, without
compliance with the statutory conditions
precedent of section 80G(5)(iii) read with
explanation 3 to section 80G(5C) of the
Act?"




                                                  36
 
 
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