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: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT Audit :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: cpt :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
« ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
 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, 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 Chennai Benches Chennai Constitution for the Week 21/11/2016 To 2411/2016

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.06.2013
June, 25th 2013
                         INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
            STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.06.2013


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

     MUMBAI BENCH
1.   ITA Nos. 525 to      Mrs. Sumanlata   S/Shri.            1. "Whether, non-issuance of Zonal Vice-        Fixed on
     530/Mum/2008,        Bansal, Mumbai   1. R.S.Padvekar,   the notice as provided in Sub.- President(MZ)   31.07.2013
     A.Ys.1999-2000 to                        J.M.            sec.(2) to Section 143 of the I.T.
     2004-05                               2.B.Ramakotaiah,   Act in the case of assessment
                                             A.M.             framed       u/sec.153A,        in
                                                              consequence of search under
                                                              sec. 132, is merely an
                                                              irregularity and the same is
                                                              curable?"
                                                              2. "Whether ,on the facts of the
                                                              case, failure on the part of the
                                                              Assessessing Officer (A.O.) to
                                                              issue notice to the assessee as
                                                              per provisions of Sub-sec.(2) to
                                                              Section 143 shall have the
                                                              effect of rendering the entire
                                                              assessment framed u/sec. 153A
                                                              of the Act as null and void?"

2.   ITA 5229/M/2004      M/s. Standard    S/Shri.            "Whether on the facts and Shri. R.S. Syal,      After the
     & 5303/M/2004        Chartered Bank   1.R.S.Padvekar,    circumstances of the case A.M.p                 Disposal of MA
     A.Y. 1996-97                            J.M.             interest      income        of
                                           2.Rajendra         Rs.73,92,16,611/-
                                             Singh, A.M.      (Rs.39,23,71,781+Rs.34,68,44,
                                                              830) is asseable to tax in the
                                                              year under consideration?"
                                                                                                                               1
     PUNE BENCHES
1.   ITA             No. M/s Audyogik     S/Shri.             1.     "In    the    facts    and Zonal Vice-    Fixed on
     1712/PN/2007,       Shikshan Mandal, 1. Mukul Shrawat,   circumstances of the case, President(MZ)      19/07/2013
     for A.Y. 2004-05.   Pune,            J.M.                whether the property of the trust
                                          2.D. Karunakara     i.e. car, be held `made
                                          Rao, A.M.           available' for the use of the
                                                              trustee, specified person u/s
                                                              13(3) of the Income Tax Act
                                                              1961?"
                                                              2.    "In     the    facts    and
                                                              circumstances of the case,
                                                              whether the expression `made
                                                              available for the use of' trustee
                                                              ipso facto be understood to have
                                                              been deemed used or applied
                                                              for the benefit of the said
                                                              trustee, with or without the
                                                              actual use or application of the
                                                              property of the trust i.e. car for
                                                              personal benefit of the trustee in
                                                              view of section 13(2) of the
                                                              Income Tax Act 1961?"
                                                              3.       "In the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case,
                                                              whether the case of the assessee
                                                              falls within the ambit of the
                                                              provisions of clause (b) of
                                                              section 13(2) of the Income tax
                                                              Act 1961?"
                                                              4. "If the answers to above
                                                              questions at sr. No. (1) to (3)
                                                              are affirmative, whether the
                                                              denial of benefits of section 11
                                                              be restricted to such income of
                                                              the trust used or applied directly
                                                              or indirectly for the benefits of trustee
                                                              or, in alternative, the total income of
                                                              the trust is not entitled for the benefits
                                                              of section 11 of the Act."
                                                                                                                          2
      DELHI
     BENCHES
1.   IT(SS)A        No. Mr. Vijay Bansal,   S/Shri           1. "Whether the addition on Hon'ble         Vice-
     438/Del/2005    & Haryana.             1. Hari Om       account      of     undisclosed President (BZ)
     IT(SS)A.22/Del/06                         Maratha,JM.   investment on the investment
                                            2.T.S.Kapoor,    on the education of daughter of
                                            AM.              the assessee, in the block
                                                             period, found to have been
                                                             made has been correctly
                                                             sustained or it deserves to be
                                                             deleted in the given facts and
                                                             the circumstances of the case?

                                                             2. Whether an addition made
                                                             and sustained on account of
                                                             undisclosed investment found in
                                                             the construction of the property
                                                             deserves to be deleted or
                                                             sustained in the given facts and
                                                             circumstances of the case?

                                                             3. Whether any addition can
                                                             be made in the business income
                                                             of the assessee on the basis of
                                                             evidence gathered behind the
                                                             back of the assessee by opening
                                                             a floppy found and seized
                                                             during the search conducted u/s
                                                             132(1) of the Act or not?

                                                             4.    Whether the cash found
                                                             during search from a brief-case
                                                             stands explained, in the given
                                                             facts and circumstances of the
                                                             case or not?




    


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

                                                                                                                                            4
2.   ITA No.            M/s Zazsons      S/Shri.              "Whether, on the facts and the      Shri. S. V.        Adjourned Sine
     219/LKW/2009 and   Exports Ltd.     1. I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as        Mehrotra, A.M.     die
     C.O.No.23/Lck/     Kanpur           2.N.K.Saini, A.M.    well as in law, the Revenue's       (As per order
     2009 A.Y.2005-06                                         ground Nos.3 to 6 be allowed or     dt.21.03.2013 of
                                                              not?"                               the Hon'ble
                                                                                                  President)
3.   SPNo.03/Lkw/2012   Smt.Uma Pandey, S/Shri.               SP No.03/Lkw/2012                  Shri.G.D.Agarwal,   Hearing is
     (A/o ITA                           Sunil Kumar                                              Hon'ble Vice-       awaited.
     188/Lkw/2010)                      Yadav,J.M.            "Whether, the stay earlier President (DZ and
     A.Y. 2007-08                       2.B.R.Jain,A.M.       granted by the Tribunal can be LZ)
     SP.No.04/Lkw/201   M/s.State Urban                       extended till disposal of the
     2                  Development                           appeal in a case where the
     (A/o ITA           Agency.                               appeal has been heard by the
     103/Lkw/2012)                                            Tribunal and is pending with
     A.Y. 2007-08                                             the Members for order?"
                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                                    J.M.
                                                              "Whether, on the peculiar facts,
                                                              circumstances of this case and
                                                              in law, there is any justification
                                                              in extending the stay of the
                                                              disputed demand that already
                                                              had run beyond 365 days or the
                                                              application so made by the
                                                              assessee is liable to be
                                                              rejected?"
                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                                    A.M.
                                                              SP No.04/Lkw/2012
                                                              "Whether, under the facts and
                                                              circumstances of the case, the
                                                              outstanding demand can be
                                                              stayed outrightly or subject to
                                                              payment of part of demand in
                                                              instalments as proposed?"
                                                                    Sd/-                  Sd/-
                                                                   J.M.                  A.M


                                                                                                                                      5
4.   ITA No.        Smt. Uma Pandey S/Shri.           "Whether, under the facts and Shri.G.D.Agarwal, Hearing is
     188/Lkw/2010                   1.Sunil Kumar     circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Vice-        awaited.
     A.Y. 2007-08                   Yadav,J.M.        payments received by the          President (DZ/LZ)
                                    2.B.R.Jain,A.M.   assessee from M/s. Amit Poly
                                                      Yarn Ltd. (now known as M/s
                                                      Amitech Ind. Ltd) are receipt as
                                                      an advance against sales made
                                                      during      the      course    of
                                                      commercial transactions and
                                                      therefore provisions of section
                                                      2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act,
                                                      1961 are not attracted to these
                                                      payments or the aforesaid
                                                      payments are purely an
                                                      advance/loan made to the
                                                      assessee,       attracting    the
                                                      provisions of section 2(22)(e) of
                                                      the Act?
                                                       "Whether,      the     issue  of
                                                      allotment of shares for Rs.10
                                                      lakhs can be restored to the
                                                      Assessing Officer to investigate
                                                      the fact as to whether the
                                                      allotment of shares was
                                                      unilateral act of the company i.e
                                                      M/s. Amitech Ind. Ltd. or the
                                                      allotment was done at the instance
                                                      of the assessee in order determine
                                                      the applicability of provisions of
                                                      section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the
                                                      benefit accrued to the assessee on
                                                      allotment of shares or addition of
                                                      Rs.10 lakhs can be confirmed by
                                                      holding that benefit accrued to the
                                                      assessee on allotment of shares
                                                      attracts provisions of section
                                                      2(22)(e) of the Act on the basis of
                                                      material available on record?"
                                                            Sd/-                 Sd/-
                                                           J.M.                  A.M
                                                                                                                     6
     JABALPUR
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.             Shri. Anil          S/Shri              "Whether on the facts and the Hon'ble                        ----
     327/Jab/2009        Jaiswal, Jabalpur   1.I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as President,
     A25/10-2004                             2.B.R.Kaushik,      well as in law, the CIT(A) was I.T.A.T.
                                             A.M.                justified in deleting the addition
                                                                 made, while making assessment
                                                                 under section 153A read with
                                                                 section 143(3) of the Act on
                                                                 protective basis?"


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




                                                                                                                                       7
3.   ITA NO.        Sri Partha Mitra,   S/Shri.            1."Whether in view of the             Hon'ble Vice-     Not yet fixed
     848/Kol/2012   Kolkata.            1.Pramod Kumar,    provision of section 254(2A) of       President
                                        AM.                the Act as also the proviso           Chennai/Kolkata
                                        2.George Mathan,   thereto and the decision of the       Zone.
                                        JM.                Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
                                                           case of Chinnayappa Mudaliar
                                                           can the decision of the
                                                           Coordinate Bench of this
                                                           Tribunal in the case of
                                                           Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as also
                                                           the decision of the Hon';ble
                                                           Madhya Pradesh High Court in
                                                           the case of Estate of Late
                                                           Tukojirao Holkar - Vs.- CWT
                                                           be held to be applicable on the
                                                           facts of the case"
                                                           2."Whether in terms of the
                                                           provisions of Rule 19(2) of the
                                                           Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
                                                           Rules read with Rule 24 & 25
                                                           (Appellate Tribunal) Rules,
                                                           1963, an appeal can be
                                                           dismissed in limine without
                                                           addressing the merits of the
                                                           appeal     just    because    the
                                                           appellant does not appear"?
                                                           3."Whether the decision in the
                                                           case of Multiplan India Pvt.
                                                           Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) will
                                                           hold good in law as on i.e. even
                                                           after insertion of Rule 24 & 25
                                                           of Appellate Tribunal Rules,
                                                           1963.?
                                                           4."Whether it is open to the
                                                           Tribunal to dismiss an appeal,
                                                           without addressing itself to the
                                                           merits of issues in appeal, because
                                                           one of the parties has not appeared
                                                           before the Tribunal"?

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



2   Int. Tax Appeal        M/s Coalsesce     S/Shri.            "Whether, in the facts and Hon'ble Zonal        Pending for
    Nos. 06 to             Investment (P)    1. B. R. Mittal,   circumstances of the case, the Vice-President   hearing.
    08/Pat/06              Ltd., Ranchi      J.M.               assessee was liable under the
    A.Ys.1997-98 to                          2. B.K. Haldar,    Interest Tax Act to pay interest tax
    1999-2000                                A.M.               on the gross interest received on
                                                                the loans and advances granted by it
                                                                during the impugned assessment
                                                                years."
    GUWAHATI
    BENCHES
1   ITA 47, 48 and         M/s Purbanchal    S/Shri.            1.    "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble        Not yet fixed.
    49(Gau)/2004           Safety Glassess   1.Hemant           circumstances of the case the President,
    A.Y.1996-97, 1997-     (P) Ltd.,         Sausarkar, J.M.    Ld. CIT(A) was justified in I.T.A.T.
    98 &                   Guwahati.         2.B.R.Kaushik,     deleting the additions made by
    1998-99                                  A.M.               the A.O. under section 69 of the
                                                                Act as undisclosed investment
                                                                amounting to Rs. 9,21,461/-,
                                                                Rs.2,20,990 and Rs.3,66,526/-
                                                                for the assessment years 1996-
                                                                97, 1997-98 and 1998-99
                                                                respectively on the ground that
                                                                the reassessments made by the
                                                                                                                                 9
A.O. for the assessment years in
question were based on the
information received from
Bureau      of      Investigation
(Economic               Offence)
(Guwahati) and that the
information was based on
material    and     documentary
evidence to substantiate the
assessments?"
2.     "Whether on the facts and
in the circumstances of the case
the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is
required to be set aside with the
direction to decide the issue
afresh    after    giving    proper
opportunity to the assessee on the
relevant information received by
the A.O. on 25.02.2003 from the
Bureau of Investigation (Economic
Offence)?"
3. "Whether, on the facts and in
 the circumstances of the case, the
 Ld. Judicial Member was
 justified in holding that the
 issuance of notice u/s 148 cannot
 hold good and, therefore, the
assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.
147 of the Act is illegal,
 unjustified and void or the Ld.
 Accountant        Member    was
 justified in holding that the
 reopening of assessment and
 subsequent assessment made by
 the A.O. is justified?"
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."

                                      10
2.   ITA Nos. 96, 97 &  Brooke Bond   S/Shri.           1. "Whether, the learned Shri.Pramod        Adjourned Sine
     98(Gau)/2002       India Ltd.,   1.Hemant          CIT(A) has erred in law and in Kumar,A.M.   -die
     A.Y.1990-91, 1991- Calcutta.     Sausarkar, J.M.   facts in directing the A.O. to
     92, 1992-93                      2.B.R.Kaushik,    consider the income from
                                      A.M.              interest and dividend as
                                                        business income for the purpose
                                                        of eligible deduction u/s 32AB
                                                        of the Act, in view of the
                                                        decision in the case of CIT Vs.
                                                        Dinjoy Tea Estate (P) Ltd.
                                                        (1997) 224 ITR 263 (Gau), 271
                                                        ITR 123 (Cal), 273 ITR 470
                                                        (Mad) and 224 ITR 263
                                                        (Gau)?"
                                                        2. "Whether, this Bench of the
                                                        Tribunal working under the
                                                        jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
                                                        Guwahati High Court can allow
                                                        the claim of the assessee that
                                                        income from interest and
                                                        dividend is to be taken as
                                                        business income for the purpose
                                                        of eligible deduction u/s 32 AB
                                                        of the Act in view of the
                                                        decisions in the cases of (i)
                                                        Britania Industries Ltd. Vs.
                                                        JCIT (2004) 271 ITR 123 (Cal)
                                                        and (ii) DCIT Vs.United
                                                        Nilgiris    Tea    Estate    Co.
                                                        Ltd.(2005) 273 ITR 470
                                                        (Mad)?"
                                                        3. "Whether, on the facts and
                                                        circumstances of the case the
                                                        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
                                                                                                                     11
                                                                  purpose of business?"
                                                                  4. "Whether, in view of change
                                                                  of stand by the assessee
                                                                  regarding nature and purpose of
                                                                  expenditure taken before the
                                                                  Ld.CIT(A) for the first time the
                                                                  issue was required to be
                                                                  restored to the A.O. for fresh
                                                                  adjudication after enquiring into
                                                                  the claim of the assessee?"

3.   ITA No.              Shri. Shyam         S/Shri.             (1) "Whether, on the basis of Hon'ble                         Not yet fixed.
     09/Gau/2006          Sunder Malpani,     Hemant Sausarkar,   facts and in the circumstances President,
     A.Y.2002-2003        Jorhat              J.M.                of the case, the assessee is I.T.A.T.
                                              B.R.Kaushik,        entitled to deduction u/s 80IB?"
                                              A.M.                (2) "Whether, in view of the
                                                                  decision in the case of CIT Vs
                                                                  Down Town Hospital Ltd. 251
                                                                  ITR 683 (Gau), the issue was
                                                                  required to be restored to the
                                                                  learned CIT(A) for fresh
                                                                  adjudication after ascertaining
                                                                  whether all the conditions u/s
                                                                  80 IB are fulfilled?"
4.   ITA 161/Gau/2003     M/s 3R,             S/Shri              1. "Whether in the facts and Shri.                            Not yet fixed
     Block period f       Gauwahati.          1. Hement           circumstances of these cases the D.K.Tyagi,J.M.
     1989-90 to 1998-99                       Sausarkar, J.M.     block     assessments    can     be
     & 1999-2000.                             2. B.R.Kaushik,     considered invalid?"
                                              A.M.                2. "Whether, in the facts and
                                                                  circumstances of these cases it can
     ITA 162/Gau/2004     M/s Panbazar
                                                                  be held that the A.O. did not bring
     Block period 1989-   Diagnostic                              on record the prima facie evidence for
     90 to 1998-99 &      Centre, Guwahati.                       invoking jurisdiction and initiation of
     1999-2000                                                    proceedings u/s 158 BD of the Act?"       ------ do -------




                                                                                                                                                 12
     BANGALORE
     BENCH
1.   MP.No            Shri Mahesh       S/Shri/Smt.          1."Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble   Vice- Fixed on
     41/Bang/2010     Hasmukh Boriya,   1.P.Madhavi Devi,   the circumstances of the case, President (BZ)    28/06/2013
     (ITA 773/B/10)                        J.M.             there is any mistake apparent
                                        2. A.Mohan          from record        rectifiable u/s
                                          Alankamony,       254(2) of the IT Act, when the
                                          A.M.              Tribunal       adjudicated     the
                                                            Revenue's appeal on the sole
                                                            ground of limitation in favor of
                                                            the Revenue, but not remitted
                                                            back the issue to CIT(A) for
                                                            adjudication on merits when
                                                            such        an       issue      of
                                                            remission/merits was not before
                                                            the Tribunal either by a prayer
                                                            submission or cross objection
                                                            by the Assessee/AR other than
                                                            the only argument to defend his
                                                            ground on technicality?"
                                                            2."Whether, the inclusion of a
                                                            copy of a favourable judgment
                                                            to the assessee on the issue of
                                                            merits in the paper book
                                                            produced before the ITAT
                                                            would amount to be a ground or
                                                            submission        enabling     the
                                                            assessee     to     invoke     the
                                                            rectification jurisdiction of the
                                                            Tribunal, when during the
                                                            course of the hearing there were
                                                            no      such     arguments      or
                                                            submission on merits/remission
                                                            before the Tribunal by the
                                                            Assessee/AR?"




                                                                                                                          13
     CHANDIGARH
     BENCH
1.   ITA No.            Shri . R.K.Garg     S/Shri .             Per J.M.                          Hon'ble Vice   Adjourned
     142/CHD/1999                           1.M.A.Bakshi, VP     1. "Whether, on the facts and in President       sine-die
     A.Y.97-98                              2. N.K.Saini. A.M.   the circumstances of this case, (Chandigarh)
     ITA 550, 489, 586,                                          the    guarantee    commission
     587 & 588/CHD/99                                            received by the assessees is a
     A.Y.87-88, 90-91,                                           revenue receipt or a capital
     98-99, 1999-2000 &                                          receipt?"
     2000-2001                                                   2. "Whether, the decision of the
                                                                 Tribunal in assessee's own case
                                                                 for the assessment year 88-89 to
                                                                 the effect that the guarantee
                                                                 commission is a revenue receipt
     ITA No.             Smt. Sunaina                            is inapplicable in view the
     143/CHD/1999        Garg                                    decision of the Hon'ble Madras
     A.Y.97-98                                                   High Court in the case of CIT v.
     ITA Nos. 589, 590                                           Pondicherry            Industrial
     & 591/CHD/2002                                              Promotion Development &
     A.Y. 1998-99,                                               Investment Corporation Ltd.
     1999-2000,                                                  (supra), and the decision of
      2000-2001                                                  Delhi High Court in the case of
                                                                 Suessen Textile Bearings Ltd.
     ITA 503/CHD/2002    Shri . R.K.Garg,                        etc. v. Union of India etc.
     A.Y. 1997-98        & Sons(HUF)                             (supra)?"
                                                                 3. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                                 the circumstances of the case,
                                                                 the additional ground raised by
                                                                 the revenue for the assessment
                                                                 year 90-91 only deserves to be
                                                                 admitted and matter for all the
                                                                 assessment years remitted to the
                                                                 CIT(A)      for    giving     an
                                                                 opportunity to the AO to
                                                                 distinguish the two High Courts cases,
                                                                 referred to above notwithstanding the
                                                                 fact that both the Members of the
                                                                 Bench have decided the issue relating
                                                                 to assessability of the guarantee
                                                                 commission on merits?"
                                                                                                                              14
                                                            Per A.M.
                                                            1. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                            the circumstances of the case, it
                                                            could be held that the guarantee
                                                            commission received by the
                                                            assessees against their personal
                                                            assets was a capital receipt?"
                                                            2. "Whether, on the facts and in
                                                            the circumstances of the case
                                                            and also in law, the Ld. CIT(A)
                                                            should have provided and
                                                            opportunity of being heard to
                                                            the Assessing Officer when
                                                            there was a specific direction by
                                                            the Tribunal to do so, before
                                                            arriving at a conclusion on the
                                                            basis of judgment of Hon'ble
                                                            Delhi High Court in the case of
                                                            Suessen Textile bearing Ltd.
                                                            and others V Union of India,
                                                            CC2 JJX 0082 and Hon'ble
                                                             Madras High Court in the case
                                                            of CIT V. Pondicherry Indl
                                                            Promotion Development and
                                                            Investment Corp. Ltd. (2000)
                                                            245 ITR 859, that the amount
                                                            received by assessees
                                                            was a capital receipt.
     AMRITSAR
     BENCH
1.   IT(SS)A No.       Sh.Vinod Goel       S/Shri            Shri H.S.Sidhu.                Zonal Vice      Pending for
     14/ASR/2005.                          1. H.S. Sidhu,   1.       "Whether, on the facts President(CZ)   fixation
                                           J.M.             and in the circumstances of
     IT(SS)A           M/s Sidhant         2.Mehar          present case, the issues in the
     No.13/ASR/2005.   Deposits &          Singh,A.M.       present appeals are covered by
                       Advances(P) Ltd.                     the decision of the Hon'ble
     IT(SS)A           M/s Trimurti                         Supreme Court in the case of
     No.12/ASR/2005    Deposits &                           Manish Maheshwary Vs. ACIT
                       Advances (P) Ltd.                    (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) and
                                                                                                                          15
the decision of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in
Income tax Appeal No.519 of
2009 decided on 20-7-2010 in
the case of CIT-I, Ludhiana Vs.
Mridula Prop. Dhruv fabics,
Ludhiana?"
2.        "Whether, on the facts
and in the circumstances of the
present case, non-production of
records by the revenue in spite
of various opportunities given
to them, benefit should go to the
revenue or the asessee?"
3.        "Whether, on the facts
and in the circumstances of the
present case, it is mandatory a
pre-requisite       that      the
satisfaction to be recorded in
the cases of persons searched
before issuance of notice under
section 158 BD of the Income
tax Act. 1961 to the assesse i.e.
other person?"
    Shri. Mehar Singh,AM.
1.               "Whether on the
facts and on law, valid Block
Assessments can be cancelled,
on the ground of assumed non-
production of record indicating
recording of satisfaction u/s
158BD, in a case where such
satisfaction is duly evidenced by
documents available in the paper
book filed by the Deptt. and
reproduced verbatim in the order
dated 06.12.2006 passed by the
Bench and subsequent M.A.dated
21.01.2009, dismissed by the
                                    16
                                                          Bench, without even considering
                                                          such satisfaction?'
                                                          2.       " Whether, on the facts
                                                          and on law Block Assessments
                                                          can be cancelled by applying
                                                          the decision of jurisdictional
                                                          High Court, relied upon by the
                                                          assessee, which lays down the
                                                          law that satisfaction under
                                                          section 158BD be recorded
                                                          before the conclusion of the
                                                          Block     Assessments      under
                                                          section 158BC of the Act, in the
                                                          absence of vital details of dates
                                                          of completion of such block
                                                          assessment being determinative
                                                          factor, in determining the
                                                          applicability of the said
                                                          decision, where the parties to
                                                          the disputes failed to furnish
                                                          such dates?"
     JAIPUR BENCH
1.   ITA No.        M/s. Mahaveer      S/Shri             Shri R.K. Gupta, JM.                Hon'ble Vice   Pending
     937/Jp/2011    Exports, Jaipur.   1.R.K.Gupta, JM.   1. "Whether, in the facts and       President
                                       2.Sanjay           circumstance, the addition of       (Ahmedabad
                                       Arora,A.M.         Rs.3,58,455/- made by one of        Zone)
                                                          the partners S mt.Kanta
                                                          Nowlkha is liable to be deleted
                                                          or to be confirmed?"
                                                          2. "Whether, in the facts and
                                                          circumstances, the addition of
                                                          Rs. 1,00,000/- each in the name
                                                          of Shri Nem Chand Nowalkha
                                                          and Shri Pankaj Ghiya of the
                                                          assessee firm made as capital
                                                          contribution is liable to be
                                                          deleted or liable to be set aside
                                                          to the file of the Assessing
                                                          Officer?"
                                                                                                                       17
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 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
                                    18
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. 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?" "Is the remand in the case of two cash credits of Rs. 1 lac each in the name of two 19 partners justified under the facts and circumstances of the case, even as contemplated by the Hon,ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Rajshree Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 331 (Raj.)?" 2. ITA No.363 & M/s Escorts Heart S/Shri Shri R.K.Gupta,J.M. Hon'ble Vice Adjourned 326/Jp/2011 Institute & 1. R.K.Gupta, 1. Whether in the facts and President (Delhi sine-die. A.Y.2008-09. Research JM. circumstances of the case, the Zone) Centre,Jaipur. 2. SanjayArora, provisions of section 194J are ITA Escort Heart AM. applicable on the payments No.1123/Jp/2011 Super Speciality made to blood bank ?" A.Y.2009-10. Hospital 2. Whether in the facts and Ltd.,Jaipur. circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 192 or section 194J are applicable in case of retainer doctors ? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, on the mark up/profits earned by Fortis Health World Ltd. (FHWL) on sale of medicines to the assessee is a commission chargeable to tax under section 194H or is a sale on which provisions of section194H are not applicable? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, on 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 20 the facts and circumstances of the case, made by the assessee- hospital or by its patients? 1.2 Whether, while deciding an issue under appeal, the tribunal required to apply its independent mind thereon, without being influenced by the decision by the first appellate authority for a subsequent year, particularly when the same was not pressed during hearing and, accordingly, the parties not heard thereon? 2. I am in agreement with the Question No. 2 as proposed by my ld. Brother, JM. 3.1 Whether, can on the admitted set of facts brought on record by the parties, the inferential finding/s by the Appellate Tribunal differ from that of either party before it, or is it to necessarily match therewith? Further, is not the tribunal duty bound to, in deciding an issue before it, apply the law as applicable to the facts found by it, including such inferential finding/s? 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 21 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 Hon'ble Vice- Adjourned Kanwar, Jodhpur. 1. JoginderSingh, circumstances of the case, solitary President sine-die J.M. transaction of purchase and sale of (Mumbai Zone) 2. K.G.Bansal, the same agricultural land with A.M. standing crops situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits, amounts to adventure in the nature of trade?" Sd/- (Joginder Singh,JM) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and sale of five pieces of agricultural land with standing crop, by way of separate conveyance deeds, beyond the prescribed distance from any municipal council, amount to transactions on capital account or adventure in the nature of trade?" Sd/- (K.G.Bansal) A.M 22 RAJKOT BENCH 1. MA. Nos. 61 to Shambhubhai S/Shri "Whether on the facts and Hon'ble Vice 66/Rjt/2010(A.O. of Mahadev Ahir, 1.T.K.Sharma, JM. circumstances of the case, all the President, Adjourned ITA Nos. 637 to Gandhidham. 2.D.K.Srivastava, six Miscellaneous Appelications (Ahmedabad sine-die. 639 & 707 to AM. filed by the Revenue should be Zone) 709/Rjt/2010) dismissed or be allowed?" 2. ITA NO. M/s Meridian S/Shri "Whether on the facts and Hon'ble Vice Fixed on 01/Rjt/2012 Impex,Jamnager. 1.T.K.Sharma, JM. circumstances of the case, the ld. President, 19/06/2013 2. D.K. Srivastava CIT(A) is correct in confirming the (Ahmedabad AM. penalty of Rs. 7,28,621/- levied by Zone) the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 OR it should be cancelled as proposed by Judicial Member?" Sd/- (T.K.Sharma,JM.) 1."Whether a well-reasoned order passed by the CIT(A) can be reversed or otherwise interfered with by this Tribunal without recording reasons for disagreeing with it. 2. "Whether the case of the assessee, on the facts stated in the Dissenting Note of the AM, is covered by Explanation 1 to section 271(1) (C)." Sd/- (D.K.Srivastava,AM.) 23 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.06.2013. Sr. Appeal No. Name of the Bench Points involved To Whom Remarks No Assessee assigned MUMBAI BENCHES 1. ITA No. M/s Kaira Can S/Shri. Reference dt. 25.11.2008 u/s 255(4) of the Shri I.P. Bansal, Heard on 6987/Mum/2003 Company Ltd. 1. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Income Tax Act made afresh by S/Shri. JM. 13/06/2013 ITA No. 5280 & J.M. Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.M. and V.K. 5281/Mum/2004 2. V.K.Gupta, A.M. Gupta, A.M. is as under. A.Y. 1996-97 to 1998- 1. "Whether the impugned transactions of 99 leasing out of assets to the assessee is a lease transaction or a financial lease? 2. "Whether the assessee can be held to be the owner of the asset acquired under the above transactions and is entitled for depreciation over the said assets or assessee being a lessee is entitled to claim the lease rent paid to the lessor as a revenue expenditure?" GUWAHATI BENCH 1. ITA No. 25/Gau/2005 M/s Baid S/Shri. "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri.Pramod Heard on A.Y.1996-97 Commercial 1.Hemant Sausarkar, circumstances of the case the transport Kumar,A.M. 04.04.2012 Enterprises Ltd., J.M. subsidy is to be treated as capital in nature in Guwahati. 2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M. view of decisions in the following cases- i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR 847 Heard on 2. ITA No. 20/Gau/2005 M/s Shiva Sakti (Gau) 04.04.2012 A.Y.2001-2002 Floor Mills (P) ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And Ltd., Tinsukia Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC) C.O.No.02/Gau/2005 iii) DCIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 357 (Gau) M/s Virgo iv) CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products Ltd. 251 Heard on 3. ITA No.165/Gau/2004 Cements Ltd., ITR 427(SC) and 03.04.2012 24 A.Y.2001-2002 Gauwahati. v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT 238 ITR 354(Cal). JAIPUR BENCH 1. ITA No. 110/JP/2012 Smt. Asha S/Shri Whether in the facts and circumstances of the Shri Heard on Mandowra,Jaipur. 1.R.K.Gupra, present case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is liable G.D.Agarwal, 14.05.2013 JM. to be confirmed or liable to be restored to his Vice- 2.Sanjay Arora, file to pass a fresh order ? President(DZ) AM. 2. MA. No. 11/JP/2011 Shri Deepak S/Shri Whether in the facts and circumstances of the Shri Heard on (A.O.of ITA No. Delela,Jaipur. 1.R.K.Gupta, present case, the order of Tribunal in Misc. G.D.Agarwal, 14.05.2013 13/JP/10) JM. Application No.11/JP/2011 arising out of the Vice- 2.Sanjay Arora, order of the Tribunal in ITA No.13/JP/2010 President(DZ) AM. relating to Assessment Year 2006-07 is liable to be allowed by recalling the order of the Tribunal or to be dismissed.? 25
 
 
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