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
|
