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: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES
 
 
« ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
 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, Visakhapatnam Bench List Of Division Bench Cases Posted Before Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon'ble Judicial Member & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'ble Accountant Member During The Period From 21.11.2016 To 09.12.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai. List Of Division Bench Cases Posted For Hearing From 25.11.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad. List Of Division Bench Cases Posted For Hearing From 28.11.2016 To 01.12.2016 Before ‘a’ Bench
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench List Of Division Bench Cases Posted Before Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon'ble Judicial Member & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'ble Accountant Member During The Period From 21.11.2016 To 09.12.2016

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.06.2012
June, 22nd 2012
                       INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

               STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.06.2012


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.   notice as provided in Sub.-sec.(2) President(MZ)   09.07.2012
     A.Ys.1999-2000 to                    M.                    to Section 143 of the I.T. Act in
     2004-05                              2.B.Ramakotaiah,      the case of assessment framed
                                          A.M.                  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            income of Rs.73,92,16,611/- (Rs.
                                          Singh,A.M.            39,23,71,781 + Rs.34,68,44,830)
                                                                is asseable to tax in the year under
                                                                consideration?"




                                                                                                                          2
4.   ITA 210/Kol/2008      M/s. Shaw Wallace    S/Shri.                "Whether, on the facts and in the Hon'ble Vice-   Fixed on
     A.Y.2004-05           Financial Services   1.R.K.Gupta,J.M.       circumstances of the case, the President, (MZ)    25.06.2012
                           Ltd.                 2.Rajendra             assessment in the case of assessee
                                                Singh,A.M.             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?"
     PUNE BENCH

1.   ITA               No. M/s Audyogik         S/Shri.                1. "In the facts and circumstances Zonal Vice-    Fixed on
     1712/PN/2007,         Shikshan Mandal,     1. Mukul Shrawat,      of the case, whether the property President(MZ)   27.07.2012.
     for A.Y. 2004-05.     Pune,                J.M.                   of the trust i.e. car, be held `made
                                                2.D. Karunakara Rao,   available' for the use of the
                                                A.M.                   trustee, specified person u/s 13(3)
                                                                       of the Income Tax Act 1961?"

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

                                                                       3. "In the facts and circumstances
                                                                       of the case, whether the case of
                                                                       the assessee falls within the ambit
                                                                       of the provisions of clause (b) of




                                                                                                                                3
                                                                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."




     DELHI BENCH

1.   ITA             No. Bhagwati Prasad   S/Shri.              "Whether, on facts             and Hon'ble            Fixed on
     1868/Del/2011       Maheswari         1.I.P.Bansal,J.M.    circumstances of the case and in President,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."




                                                                                                                             4
     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)
                                                                    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




                                                                                                                                     5
                                                                   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?"
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              To be fixed
     (A/o ITA                                 Sunil Kumar                                                  President,I.T.A.T.
     188/Lkw/2010)                            Yadav,J.M.           "Whether, the stay earlier granted
     A.Y. 2007-08                             2.B.R.Jain,A.M.      by the Tribunal can be extended
     SP.No.04/Lkw/2012     M/s.State Urban                         till disposal of the appeal in a case
     (A/o ITA              Development                             where the appeal has been heard
     103/Lkw/2012)         Agency.                                 by the Tribunal and is pending
     A.Y. 2007-08                                                  with the Members for order?"

                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                                         J.M.




                                                                                                                                       6
                                                              "Whether, on the peculiar facts,
                                                              circumstances of this case and in
                                                              law, there is any justification in
                                                              extending the stay of the disputed
                                                              demand that already had run
                                                              beyond 365 days or the
                                                              application so made by the
                                                              assessee is liable to be rejected?"

                                                                                   Sd/-
                                                                                   A.M.

                                                              SP No.04/Lkw/2012

                                                              "Whether, under the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case, the
                                                              outstanding demand can be stayed
                                                              outrightly or subject to payment
                                                              of part of demand in instalments
                                                              as proposed?"

                                                                    Sd/-                Sd/-
                                                                   J.M.                A.M




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




                                                                                                                        7
2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act,
1961 are not attracted to these
payments or the aforesaid
payments       are    purely     an
advance/loan made to the
assessee, attracting the provisions
of section 2(22)(e) of the Act?


 "Whether, the issue of allotment
of shares for Rs.10 lakhs can be
restored to the Assessing Officer
to investigate the fact as to
whether the allotment of shares
was unilateral act of the company
i.e M/s. Amitech Ind. Ltd. or the
allotment was done at the instance
of the assessee in order determine
the applicability of provisions of
section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the
benefit accrued to the assessee on
allotment of shares or addition of
Rs.10 lakhs can be confirmed by
holding that benefit accrued to the
assessee on allotment of shares
attracts provisions of section
2(22)(e) of the Act on the basis of
material available on record?"

      Sd/-               Sd/-
     J.M.                A.M




                                      8
     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,A.M.   the Trading results and the
                     Ltd.                                     assessee has explained certain
                                                              incriminating Evidences found by
                                                              the Central Excise Department,
                                                              particularly when the purchases
                                                              and sales are found fully vouched
                                                              and     verifiable,  the    entire
                                                              Investment can be treated as
                                                              excess sale and be added to the
                                                              total income of the assessee or
                                                              not?"

                                                              2. "Whether, in a case of a
                                                              Company the 3 telephone and car
                                                              running       expenses    can  be
                                                              disallowed and added in the hands
                                                              of the company on account of
                                                              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?"




                                                                                                                         9
     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
                                                                                               st
     45/Pat/05) A.Y. 86-87                                                   Tribunal dt. 21 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



                                                                                                                                          10
                                                                       years."
    GUWAHATI
    BENCHES
1   ITA 47, 48 and         M/s Purbanchal        S/Shri.               1. "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble President,   Not yet fixed.
    49(Gau)/2004           Safety Glassess (P)   1.Hemant Sausarkar,   circumstances of the case the Ld. I.T.A.T.
    A.Y.1996-97, 1997-98   Ltd., Guwahati.       J.M.                  CIT(A) was justified in deleting
    &                                            2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   the additions made by the A.O.
    1998-99                                                            under section 69 of the Act as
                                                                       undisclosed investment amounting
                                                                       to Rs. 9,21,461/-, Rs.2,20,990 and
                                                                       Rs.3,66,526/- for the assessment
                                                                       years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-
                                                                       99 respectively on the ground that
                                                                       the reassessments made by the
                                                                       A.O. for the assessment years in
                                                                       question were based on the
                                                                       information received from Bureau
                                                                       of     Investigation    (Economic
                                                                       Offence) (Guwahati) and that the
                                                                       information was based on material
                                                                       and documentary evidence to
                                                                       substantiate the assessments?"

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




                                                                                                                                11
                                                                       Offence)?"

                                                                       3. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                        the circumstances of the case,
                                                                        the Ld. Judicial Member was
                                                                        justified in holding that the
                                                                        issuance of notice u/s 148
                                                                        cannot hold good and,
                                                                        therefore, the assessment u/s
                                                                        143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is
                                                                        illegal, unjustified and void or
                                                                        the Ld. Accountant Member
                                                                        was justified in holding that
                                                                        the reopening of assessment
                                                                        and subsequent assessment
                                                                        made by the A.O. is justified?"

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




                                                                                                                           12
ITR 263 (Gau)?"

2. "Whether, this Bench of the
Tribunal working under the
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
Guawahati High Court can allow
the claim of the assessee that
income from interest and dividend
is to be taken as business income
for the purpose of eligible
deduction u/s 32 AB of the Act in
view of the decisions in the cases
of (i) Britania Industries Ltd. Vs.
JCIT (2004) 271 ITR 123 (Cal)
and (ii) DCIT Vs.United Nilgiris
Tea Estate Co. Ltd.(2005) 273
ITR 470 (Mad)?"


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


4. "Whether, in view of change of
stand by the assessee regarding
nature and purpose of expenditure




                                      13
                                                                        taken before the Ld.CIT(A) for
                                                                        the first time the issue was
                                                                        required to be restored to the A.O.
                                                                        for fresh adjudication after
                                                                        enquiring into the claim of the
                                                                        assessee?"

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

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


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




                                                                                                                                        14
                                                                   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          Rs.18,41,787/- made to CMDA Hon'ble Vice-
     ITA 494/Chenn/2010                         Maratha,J.M.       under the provisions of Section President, (CZ)
     A.Y.2005-06                                2.N.S.Saini,A.M.   133-A of the Tamil Nadu Town
     ITA 495/Chenn/2010                                            and Country Planning Act, 1971
     A.Y.2006-07                                                   (as amended vide amending Acts
                                                                   31 of 2000, 17 of 2001 and 7 of
                                                                   2002), which was not refundable
                                                                   to the assessee forms part of the
                                                                   cost of hospital building to the
                                                                   assessee or not under section 43
                                                                   (1) of the Act?"
                                                                   2."Whether, the assessee was
                                                                   entitled to depreciation under
                                                                   section 32 of the Act in respect of
                                                                   the entire cost of hospital building
                                                                   including the payment made to
                                                                   CMDA, which was used by it for
                                                                   its business purpose or not?"




                                                                                                                           15
     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)       22.06.2012
                                          J.M.                there is any mistake apparent from
                                          2. A.Mohan          record rectifiable u/s 254(2) of
                                          Alankamony A.M.     the IT Act, when the Tribunal
                                                              adjudicated the Revenue's appeal
                                                              on the sole ground of limitation in
                                                              favour of the Revenue, but not
                                                              remitted back the issue to CIT(A)
                                                              for adjudication on merits when
                                                              such an issue of remission/merits
                                                              was not before the Tribunal either
                                                              by a prayer submission or cross
                                                              objection by the Assessee/AR
                                                              other than the only argument to
                                                              defend       his    ground       on
                                                              technicality?"

                                                              2."Whether, the inclusion of a
                                                              copy of a favourable judgement to
                                                              the assessee on the issue of merits
                                                              in the paperbook produced before
                                                              the ITAT would amount to be a
                                                              ground or submission enabling the
                                                              assessee to invoke the rectification
                                                              jurisdiction of the Tribunal, when
                                                              during the course of the hearing
                                                              there were no such arguments or
                                                              submission on merits/remission
                                                              before the Tribunal by the
                                                              Assessee/AR?"







                                                                                                                        16
     COCHIN BENCH
1.   ITA                 P.K.Kannan   S/Shri.               "Whether, the provisio can Shri N.V.Vasudevan,   Adj. Sine -die
     No.1004/Coch/2008                1.N.Vijaykumaran,J.   override the main Section in JM.
     A.Y. 2005-06                     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
                                                            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




                                                                                                                   17
                                                                   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              Yet to be fixed.
     A.Y.2005-06 &       Educational Trust   1.N.Vijaykumaran,     section 271D is justified?"    President,I.T.A.T.
     ITA 721/Coch/2010                       J.M.
     A.Y.2006-07                             2.Sanjay Arora,A.M.                    Sd/-
                                                                                   J.M.
                                                                   1"Whether, on facts, and in the
                                                                   circumstances of the case, penalty
                                                                   u/s.271D to the extent of Rs.79.40
                                                                   lacs and Rs.15.25 lacs for the two
                                                                   consecutive years, is liable to be
                                                                   levied, or not?
                                                                   2."Whether, on facts and in the
                                                                   circumstances of the case, penalty
                                                                   levied u/s.271D to the extent of
                                                                   Rs.49.40 lacs (for A.Y. 2005-06),
                                                                   is liable to be deleted, or restored
                                                                   back to the file of the assessing
                                                                   authority for the necessary factual
                                                                   determination, whereupon only
                                                                   the law can be applied?"

                                                                                  Sd/-
                                                                                 A.M.




                                                                                                                             18
     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              circumstances of the case, the President (AZ)   die
     A.Y.2000-01           Isroll, Surat       Shrawat,J.M.         matter is required to be restored
                                               2.A.K.Garodia,A.M.   back to the file of Learned
                                                                    CIT(A) for a fresh decision as
                                                                    proposed by the A.M. or the
                                                                    tribunal can decide the matter as
                                                                    per the proposed order of the
                                                                    J.M."


                                                                    2. "Whether under the facts and
                                                                    circumstances of the case, since
                                                                    the receipts issued in respect of
                                                                    the said "Corpus Fund" was
                                                                    prepared by the employees of the
                                                                    society, an enquiry was still
                                                                    required to decide the nature of
                                                                    the said "Corpus Fund"?


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




                                                                                                                          19
     RAJKOT
     BENCH

1.   ITA 361/Rjt/1999   Shri. R.K.Mehta     Shri.                "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri.G.C.Gupta,   Pending
                                            T.K.Sharma,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
                                                                 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/-"




                                                                                                                           20
     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
     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




                                                                                                                                 21
to the AO to distinguish the two
High Courts cases, referred to
above notwithstanding the fact
that both the Members of the
Bench have decided the issue
relating to assessability of the
guarantee commission on merits?"

Per A.M.


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


2. "Whether, on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case and
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.




                                      22
                                                                 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
                                                                 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




                                                                                                                                  23
the circumstances of the present
case, it is mandatory a pre-
requisite that the satisfaction to be
recorded in the cases of persons
searched before issuance of notice
under section 158 BD of the
Income tax Act. 1961 to the
assesse i.e. other person?"

   Shri. Mehar Singh,AM.

1."Whether on the facts and on
law, valid Block Assessments can
be cancelled, on the ground of
assumed non-production of record
indicating       recording     of
satisfaction u/s 158BD, in a case
where such satisfaction is duly
evidenced       by      documents
available in the paper book filed
by the Deptt. and reproduced
verbatim in the order dated
06.12.2006 passed by the Bench
and      subsequent     M.A.dated
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




                                        24
                                                                    of jurisdictional High Court,
                                                                    relied upon by the assessee, which
                                                                    lays down the law that satisfaction
                                                                    under section 158BD be recorded
                                                                    before the conclusion of the Block
                                                                    Assessments under section 158BC
                                                                    of the Act, in the absence of vital
                                                                    details of dates of completion of
                                                                    such block assessment being
                                                                    determinative       factor,      in
                                                                    determining the applicability of
                                                                    the said decision, where the
                                                                    parties to the disputes failed to
                                                                    furnish such dates?"




     JAIPUR BENCH
1.   ITA No. 937/Jp/2011   M/s. Mahaveer      S/Shri                Shri R.K. Gupta, JM.
                           Exports, Jaipur.   1.R.K.Gupta, JM.
                                              2.Sanjay Arora,A.M.   1. "Whether, in the facts and
                                                                    circumstance, the addition of
                                                                    Rs.3,58,455/- made by one of the
                                                                    partners S mt.Kanta Nowlkha is
                                                                    liable to be deleted or to be
                                                                    confirmed?"

                                                                    2. "Whether, in the facts and
                                                                    circumstances, the addition of Rs.




                                                                                                          25
1,00,000/- each in the name of
Shri Nem Chand Nowalkha and
Shri Pankaj Ghiya of the assessee
firm made as capital contribution
is liable to be deleted or liable to
be set aside to the file of the
Assessing Officer?"

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

Shri Sanjay Arora,AM.

1. "Whether, section 68 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 can be
invoked where the assessee fails
to satisfactorily explain the nature
and source of a case credit found
recorded by him in his books of
account for the relevant year, or is
the Revenue also required to
establish that the assessee had in
existence a source of income
before the date on which such




                                       26
cash credit was recorded, i.e., in
order to treat the same as
unexplained u/s. 68?"

2. "Whether, the addition of the
impugned sums as unexplained
credits u/s.68 can be deleted on
the sole ground that the assessee
had no source of income prior to
the date on which the same were
found recorded in the assessee's
books of account, notwithstanding
the fact that it has completely
failed to discharge the burden of
satisfactorily explaining the nature
and source thereof?"

3. "Whether, the view that a cash
credit recorded in the books of
account of a partnership firm
ostensibly as capital contributed
by a partner cannot be treated as
unexplained u/s.68 in the hands of
the firm even if the assesseefirm
fails to satisfactorily explain the
nature and source thereof, and
more particularly if its fails to
adduce evidence to establish that
the alleged capital was actually
contributed by the partner, is
sustainable in law in view of the
decision     by     the    Hon'ble
jurisdictional high court in CIT v.




                                       27
                                                                      Kishorilal Santoshilal (1995)216
                                                                      ITR 9 (Raj.)?"

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

                                                                      4.2 "Is the remand in the case of
                                                                      two cash credits of Rs. 1 lac each
                                                                      in the name of two partners
                                                                      justified under the facts and
                                                                      circumstances of the case, even as
                                                                      contemplated by the Hon,ble
                                                                      jurisdictional high court in the
                                                                      case of Rajshree Synthetics (P)
                                                                      Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 331
                                                                      (Raj.)?"
2.   ITA No.363 &          M/s Escorts Heart     S/Shri               Shri R.K.Gupta,J.M.
     326/Jp/2011           Institute &           1.R.K.Gupta,JM.
     A.Y.2008-09.          Research              2.Sanjay Arora,AM.   1. Whether in the facts and
                           Centre,Jaipur.                             circumstances of the case, the
     ITA No.1123/Jp/2011   Escort Heart Super                         provisions of section 194J are
     A.Y.2009-10.          Speciality Hospital                        applicable on the payments made
                           Ltd.,Jaipur.                               to blood bank ?




                                                                                                           28
2. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
provisions of section 192 or
section 194J are applicable in case
of retainer doctors ?


3. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, on the
mark up/profits earned by Fortis
Health World Ltd. (FHWL) on
sale of medicines to the assessee
is a commission chargeable to tax
under section 194H or is a sale on
which provisions of section194H
are not applicable?


4. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, on the
mark up/profits the provisions of
section 194C can be invoked by
the Tribunal where neither this is
a case of department nor of the
assessee ?

   Shri Sanjay Arora, AM.

1.1 Whether the payments to the
blood banks for carrying out
investigation procedures, are, in
the facts and circumstances of the
case, made by the assessee-




                                      29
hospital or by its patients?


1.2 Whether, while deciding an
issue under appeal, the tribunal
required to apply its independent
mind thereon, without being
influenced by the decision by the
first appellate authority for a
subsequent year, particularly
when the same was not pressed
during hearing and, accordingly,
the parties not heard thereon?


2. I am in agreement with the
Question No. 2 as proposed by my
ld. Brother, JM.


3.1 Whether, can on the admitted
set of facts brought on record by
the parties, the inferential
finding/s by the Appellate
Tribunal differ from that of either
party before it, or is it to
necessarily match therewith?
Further, is not the tribunal duty
bound to, in deciding an issue
before it, apply the law as
applicable to the facts found by it,
including      such       inferential
finding/s?




                                        30
                                                                 3.2 Whether, in the facts and
                                                                 circumstances of the case, the
                                                                 supply of medicines by Fortis
                                                                 Health World Ltd.(FHWL) to the
                                                                 assessee-company for its IPD
                                                                 Pharmacy,       constitutes     an
                                                                 independent     business     being
                                                                 carried on by FHWL, or is the
                                                                 said supply only the result of the
                                                                 work carried out by its relevant
                                                                 manpower, whose services stand
                                                                 already contracted to the assessee
                                                                 company and subject to tax
                                                                 deduction u/s. 194C of the Act?
     JODHPUR BENCH

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

                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                                 (Joginder Singh)
                                                                                       J.M.




                                                                                                                             31
"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.




                                      32
                             INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI


                     LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.06.2012.



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?"




                                                                                                                                  33
3.   ITA 6484/Mum/2009     M/s. Heritage       S/Shri.                "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri.R.S.Syal,A   Heard on
                           Housing             1.Rajendra Singh, A.M. circumstances of the case and after .M.             22.06.2012
                           Development         2.Vijay Pal Rao,J.M.   considering the various decisions of the co-
                           Corporation                                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."
     GUWAHATI BENCH

1.   ITA No. 25/Gau/2005   M/s Baid            S/Shri.               "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri.Pramod        Heard on
     A.Y.1996-97           Commercial          1.Hemant Sausarkar,   circumstances of the case the transport Kumar,A.M.   04.04.2012
                           Enterprises Ltd.,   J.M.                  subsidy is to be treated as capital in nature in
     ITA No. 20/Gau/2005   Guwahati.           2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M.   view of decisions in the following cases-
     A.Y.2001-2002         M/s Shiva Sakti                                                                                Heard on
                           Floor Mills (P)                           i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR 847            04.04.2012
     C.O.No.02/Gau/2005    Ltd., Tinsukia                            (Gau)
                                                                     ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And
                                                                     Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC)
     ITA No.165/Gau/2004   M/s Virgo                                 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



                                                                                                                            34
                                                             238 ITR 354(Cal).

     COCHIN BENCH

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

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

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

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



                                                                                                                            35
                                                                                      J.M.
                                                                1. "Whether, there is any inconsistency
                                                                between sec. 80HHC (3) and explanation
                                                                thereto?"

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

                                                                3. "Whether, the reliance by the Revenue on
                                                                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,J.M.   exports' by a supporting manufacturer (in President(BZ)        19.03.2012
                                        2.Sanjay Arora,A.M.     respect of the turnover disclaimed by the
                                                                export house in its favour) as forming part of
                                                                its export turnover and, thus, exigible for
                                                                deduction under section 80HHC of the Act,
                                                                stands settled by a series of binding
                                                                decisions?"

                                                                2. "Whether, in any case, the matter, after
                                                                examination of the obtaining facts and




                                                                                                                                 36
                                                                     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,
                                                                     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



                                                                                                                                       37
erroneously rejected the said corrigendum as
a mere after thought and not having any
binding force and in the absence of any
provision of law prohibiting the assessee
from amending the original Trust Deed by
way of corrigendum?"

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

1. " Whether, on the facts and in 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




                                                  38
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?"




                                                  39
 
 
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