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: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS
 
 
« ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi Consolidated of Benches for 14/12/2016 & 15/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches Mumbal Consolidated cause list of Sa/MA/ Pronouncement for friday 09.12.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata Benches Kolkata Consolidated list of Orders read for Pronouncement on 02/12/2016
 Income TAx Appellate Tibunal Pune Benches Pune Causelist for Bench "A" For The Week Ending 09/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata Benches Kolkata Constitution of Kolkata Benches for 05/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Benches ahmedabad S/shri R. P. Tolani, Jm & Manish Borad, Am Causelist For Bench 'A' Date : 05/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi Benches New Delhi The Revised Constitution of Delhi Benches from 28/11/2016 To 01/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches Mumbai Statement showing The List of Special Bench Cases Pending for 2016 as on 16/11/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches Mumbai list of order ready for pronouncement on 30/11/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches Chennaj Revised Constitution For The Week From O5/1212016 To O8/12120-16
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: Vice President’s Secretariat: Hyderabad Constitution Of Hyderabad Benches

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.07.2013
July, 24th 2013
                  INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
        STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.07.2013


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 the notice Zonal Vice-     Fixed on
     530/Mum/2008,       Bansal, Mumbai   1. R.S.Padvekar,   as provided in Sub.-sec.(2) to Section President(MZ)    31.07.2013
     A.Ys.1999-2000 to                       J.M.            143 of the I.T. Act in the case of
     2004-05                              2.B.Ramakotaiah,   assessment framed u/sec.153A, in
                                            A.M.             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 Disposal
     & 5303/M/2004       Chartered Bank   1.R.S.Padvekar,    circumstances of the case interest A.M.p                of MA
     A.Y. 1996-97                           J.M.             income       of     Rs.73,92,16,611/-
                                          2.Rajendra         (Rs.39,23,71,781+Rs.34,68,44,830) is
                                            Singh, A.M.      asseable to tax in the year under
                                                             consideration?"




                                                                                                                          1
     PUNE BENCHES
1.   ITA             No. M/s Audyogik     S/Shri.             1. "In the facts and circumstances of the Zonal    Vice-    Fixed on
     1712/PN/2007,       Shikshan Mandal, 1. Mukul Shrawat,   case, whether the property of the trust President(MZ)    19/07/2013
     for A.Y. 2004-05.   Pune,            J.M.                i.e. car, be held `made available' for the
                                          2.D. Karunakara     use of the trustee, specified person u/s
                                          Rao, A.M.           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."
      DELHI
     BENCHES
1.   IT(SS)A        No. Mr. Vijay Bansal,   S/Shri            1. "Whether the addition on account of Hon'ble Vice-
     438/Del/2005    & Haryana.             1. Hari Om        undisclosed     investment     on    the President (BZ)
     IT(SS)A.22/Del/06                         Maratha,JM.    investment on the education of
                                            2.T.S.Kapoor,     daughter of the assessee, in the block
                                            AM.               period, found to have been made has
                                                              been correctly sustained or it deserves
                                                              to be deleted in the given facts and the

                                                                                                                            2
                                                                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?




     LUCKNOW
     BENCHES
1.   ITA No.             Ms Rajya Krishi   S/Shri               1."Whether"       the      CIT(A)       has    Shri.Barathvja      Hearing is
     141,142,143 &       Utpadan mandi     1. I.S.Verma,J.M.    jurisdiction to decide the assessee's          Sankar,Vice        awaited.
     144/LKW/2009        Parishad,         2. N.K.Saini, A.M.   petition for stay or recovery of demand        President (as per
     C.O.No.06 to        Lucknow                                during the pendency of assessee's              dt.03.04.2013) of
     09/LKW/2009                                                appeal furnished under section 246A of         the        Hon'ble
     A.Y.2001-02,2002-                                          the Act?"                                      President)
     03,2003-                                                   2. "If the CIT(A) has jurisdiction to decide
     04 &2006-07                                                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
                                                              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?"
2.   ITA No.            M/s Zazsons      S/Shri.              "Whether, on the facts and the           Shri. S. V.        Adj.to 7th & 8th
     219/LKW/2009 and   Exports Ltd.     1. I.S.Verma, J.M.   circumstances of the case as well as in  Mehrotra, A.M.     August, 2013
     C.O.No.23/Lck/     Kanpur           2.N.K.Saini, A.M.    law, the Revenue's ground Nos.3 to 6     (As per order
     2009 A.Y.2005-06                                         be allowed or not?"                      dt.21.03.2013 of
                                                                                                       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 granted by President (DZ and
     A.Y. 2007-08                       2.B.R.Jain,A.M.       the Tribunal can be extended till LZ)
     SP.No.04/Lkw/      M/s.State Urban                       disposal of the appeal in a case where
     2012               Development                           the appeal has been heard by the
     (A/o ITA           Agency.                               Tribunal and is pending with the
     103/Lkw/2012)                                            Members for order?"
     A.Y. 2007-08                                                                   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
                                                                                                                               4
                                                      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


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 payments Hon'ble Vice- awaited.
     A.Y. 2007-08                   Yadav,J.M.        received by the assessee from M/s. President (DZ/LZ)
                                    2.B.R.Jain,A.M.   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

                                                                                                               5
                                                                 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
     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 well as in President,
     A25/10-2004                             2.B.R.Kaushik,      law, the CIT(A) was justified in I.T.A.T.
                                             A.M.                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 power            President
     655/Kol/2011.       Kolkata.            J.M.                subsidy received by the assessee is            Chennai/Kolkata
     A.Y.2006-07 2007-                       2.C.D.Rao,A.M.      capital in nature or revenue in nature ?"      Zone.
     08
2.   ITA No.             M/s Ceean           S/Shri              "Whether or not, on the facts and in the       Hon'ble Vice-     Not yet fixed
     1120/Kol/2012.      Commerce (P)        1.Promod Kumar,     circumstances of the case and in               President
     A.Y.2003-04.        Ltd., Kolkata.      A.M.                accordance with the low, the value of          Chennai/Kolkata
                                             2.Mahavir Singh,    sale consideration to be adopted for           Zone.
                                             J.M.                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".



                                                                                                                                       6
3.   ITA NO.        Sri Partha Mitra,   S/Shri.            1."Whether in view of the provision of        Hon'ble Vice-     Not yet fixed
     848/Kol/2012   Kolkata.            1.Pramod Kumar,    section 254(2A) of the Act as also the        President
                                        AM.                proviso thereto and the decision of the       Chennai/Kolkata
                                        2.George Mathan,   Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of          Zone.
                                        JM.                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"?




                                                                                                                                7
    PATNA BENCH
    (Circuit Bench,
    Ranchi)
1    MA No.                Shri. Ghasi Ram   S/Shri.            "Whether, on the facts and in the          Hon'ble Zonal    Pending for
     11 (Pat) / 2007       Agarwal, Ranchi   1. B. R. Mittal,   circumstances of the case, the             Vice President   hearing.
     arising out in                          J.M.               application of the department for recall   (KZ)
     IT(SS)A No.                             2. B.K. Haldar,    of the order of the Tribunal dt. 21st
     45/Pat/05) A.Y. 86-                     A.M.               June, 2006 passed in IT(ss)A No.
     87 to 97-98                                                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 assessee    Vice-President   hearing.
    08/Pat/06              Ltd., Ranchi      J.M.               was liable under the Interest Tax Act to
    A.Ys.1997-98 to                          2. B.K. Haldar,    pay interest tax on the gross interest
    1999-2000                                A.M.               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 Ld. President,
    A.Y.1996-97, 1997-     (P) Ltd.,         Sausarkar, J.M.    CIT(A) was justified in deleting the I.T.A.T.
    98 &                   Guwahati.         2.B.R.Kaushik,     additions made by the A.O. under
    1998-99                                  A.M.               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?"
                                                                                                                                 8
                                                        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."
2.   ITA Nos. 96, 97 &  Brooke Bond   S/Shri.           1. "Whether, the learned CIT(A) has Shri.Pramod     Adjourned Sine -
     98(Gau)/2002       India Ltd.,   1.Hemant          erred in law and in facts in directing Kumar,A.M.   die
     A.Y.1990-91, 1991- Calcutta.     Sausarkar, J.M.   the A.O. to consider the income from
     92, 1992-93                      2.B.R.Kaushik,    interest and dividend as business
                                      A.M.              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

                                                                                                                 9
                                                                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 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 facts and Hon'ble              Not yet fixed.
     09/Gau/2006          Sunder Malpani,   Hemant Sausarkar,   in the circumstances of the case, the President,
     A.Y.2002-2003        Jorhat            J.M.                assessee is entitled to deduction u/s I.T.A.T.
                                            B.R.Kaushik,        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 circumstances Shri.             Not yet fixed
     Block period f       Gauwahati.        1. Hement           of these cases the block assessments can be D.K.Tyagi,J.M.
     1989-90 to 1998-99                     Sausarkar, J.M.     considered invalid?"
                                                                2.     "Whether, in     the facts     and
                                                                                                                                 10
     & 1999-2000.                             2. B.R.Kaushik,     circumstances of these cases it can be
                                              A.M.                held that the A.O. did not bring on
     ITA 162/Gau/2004     M/s Panbazar                            record the prima facie evidence for
     Block period 1989-   Diagnostic                              invoking jurisdiction and initiation of
     90 to 1998-99 &      Centre, Guwahati.                       proceedings u/s 158 BD of the Act?"
     1999-2000                                                                                              ------ do -------



     BANGALORE
     BENCH
1.   MP.No                Shri Mahesh         S/Shri/Smt.          1."Whether, on the facts and in the Hon'ble Vice- Fixed on
     41/Bang/2010         Hasmukh Boriya,     1.P.Madhavi Devi,   circumstances of the case, there is any President (BZ) 08/11/2013
     (ITA 773/B/10)                              J.M.             mistake       apparent     from     record
                                              2. A.Mohan          rectifiable u/s 254(2) of the IT Act,
                                                Alankamony,       when the Tribunal adjudicated the
                                                A.M.              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?"

                                                                                                                                11
     AHMEDABAD
     BENCH
1.   ITA.No.462/Ahd/02 Redex Protech        S/Shri,              "Whether, the learned Commissioner of Hon'ble         Vice
     C.O. 28/Ahd/2002, Pvt. Ltd.,           1. D.K.Tyagi,JM.     Income-tax (A)-IX, Ahmedabad has President
     ITA No.823/Ahd/04                      2. A.Mohan           erred in law and on facts in entertaining ( Ahd. Zone)
                                            Alankamony,AM.       the appeal in gross violation of
                                                                 provisions of section 249(4) of the
                                                                 Income-tax Act, 1961 even as the
                                                                 assessee had not paid admitted tax on
                                                                 the returned income?
     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 the President               sine-die
     A.Y.97-98                              2. N.K.Saini. A.M.   circumstances of this case, the (Chandigarh)
     ITA 550, 489, 586,                                          guarantee commission received by the
     587 & 588/CHD/99                                            assessees is a revenue receipt or a
     A.Y.87-88, 90-91,                                           capital receipt?"
     98-99, 1999-2000 &                                          2. "Whether, the decision of the
     2000-2001                                                   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
     ITA No.             Smt. Sunaina                            Court in the case of CIT v. Pondicherry
     143/CHD/1999        Garg                                    Industrial Promotion Development &
     A.Y.97-98                                                   Investment Corporation Ltd. (supra),
     ITA Nos. 589, 590                                           and the decision of Delhi High Court in
     & 591/CHD/2002                                              the case of Suessen Textile Bearings
     A.Y. 1998-99,                                               Ltd. etc. v. Union of India etc.
     1999-2000,                                                  (supra)?"
      2000-2001                                                  3. "Whether, on the facts and in the
                                                                 circumstances of the case, the
     ITA 503/CHD/2002    Shri . R.K.Garg,                        additional ground raised by the revenue
     A.Y. 1997-98        & Sons(HUF)                             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,
                                                                                                                                 12
                                                            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.    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 and in the President(CZ)   fixation
                                           J.M.             circumstances of present case, the
     IT(SS)A           M/s Sidhant         2.Mehar          issues in the present appeals are
     No.13/ASR/2005.   Deposits &          Singh,A.M.       covered by the decision of the Hon'ble
                       Advances(P) Ltd.                     Supreme Court in the case of Manish
     IT(SS)A           M/s Trimurti                         Maheshwary Vs. ACIT (2007) 289 ITR
     No.12/ASR/2005    Deposits &                           341 (SC) and the decision of the
                       Advances (P) Ltd.                    Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in
                                                            Income tax Appeal No.519 of 2009

                                                                                                                       13
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 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
                                            14
                                                          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 the             Zone)
                                                          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?"
                                                          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
                                                                                                                         15
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 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
                                           16
                                                             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 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 made to
     No.1123/Jp/2011   Super Speciality                      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 ?
                                                                                                                         17
     Shri Sanjay Arora, AM.
1.1 Whether the payments to the blood
banks for carrying out investigation
procedures, are, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, made by the
assessee-hospital or by its patients?
1.2 Whether, while deciding an issue
under appeal, the tribunal required to
apply its independent mind thereon,
without being influenced by the
decision by the first appellate authority
for a subsequent year, particularly when
the same was not pressed during
hearing and, accordingly, the parties
not heard thereon?
2.        I am in agreement with the
Question No. 2 as proposed by my ld.
Brother, JM.
3.1 Whether, can on the admitted set
of facts brought on record by the
parties, the inferential finding/s by the
Appellate Tribunal differ from that of
either party before it, or is it to
necessarily match therewith? Further, is
not the tribunal duty bound to, in
deciding an issue before it, apply the
law as applicable to the facts found by
it, including such inferential finding/s?
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
                                              18
                                                                u/s. 194C of the Act?
3.   ITA                 Smt. Meena Baid,   S/Shri              Whether in the facts and circumstances Shri R.S. Syal,     Pending
     No.534/JP/2011      Jaipur.             1.R.K.Gupta,J.M.   of the case, the order of Ld. A.M.
                                             2.Sanjay Arora,    CIT(Appeals) is liable to be confirmed
                                             A.M.               or to be reversed?
                                                                                    Sd/-
                                                                              (R.K.Gupta,J.M.)

                                                                1.      Is the decision in the instant
                                                                appeal, in the facts and circumstances
                                                                of its case, governed, or liapble to be
                                                                so, by the principle or doctrine of
                                                                precedence by the decision by the
                                                                Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Ratan
                                                                Lal Baid(in ITA No. 572/JP/20-09
                                                                dated 30-10-2009), which proceeds on
                                                                the premises that the impugned
                                                                transactions (in that case) are genuine
                                                                and, further, form part of the assessee's
                                                                business, or not so?
                                                                2.       "Whether, in the facts and
                                                                circumstances of the instant case, the
                                                                impugned transactions are collusive
                                                                and sham, so that loss ascribed thereto
                                                                is to be ignored, and is in any case a
                                                                capital loss or a speculative loss, or not
                                                                so ?"
                                                                                   Sd/-
    


                                                                       Sanjay Arora,A.M.
4.   ITA No. 224/JU/04   M/s.Hindustan       S/Shri             1. Whether on the facts and in the Hon'ble Vice
     ITA No. 298/JU/04   Zinc Ltd.,         1.R.K.Gupta,J.M.    circumstances of the case, the issue in President (Delhi
                         Udaipur.           2.Sanjay Arora,     respect of disallowance of Rs. Zone)
                                            A.M.S/Shri          1,65,50,475/- on account of prior
                                                                period expenses is liable to be restored
                                                                to the file of the A.O. or liable to be
                                                                confirmed.?

                                                                2.Whether on the facts and in the
                                                                circumstances of the case, the issue in
                                                                                                                              19
respect of disallowance of Rs. 304,82
lacs out of extra-ordinary items relating
to the amount written off as a result of
the closure of Degana Tungsten Mine
Unit is liable to restored back to the file
of the A.O. or liable to confirmed ?

3. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the issue in
respect of deleting the disallowance of
Rs. 6,88,62,383/- being the Mine
Development Expenses is liable to be
deleted or to be set aside to the file of
the ld. CIT(A)?

4. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the issue in
respect of deleting the disallowance of
Rs. 3.50 crores made by the A.O. u/s
40A(9) of I.T. Act is liable to be
deleted or to be set aside to the file of
the A.O.?
                    Sd/-
             (R.K.Gupta,J.M.)

1.(a) Whether the finding by the
authorities below that the assessee's
claim qua prior period expenses (for
Rs.165.50 lakhs) does not represent any
disputed liability crystallized during the
relevant year is correct on facts and has
also not been suitably met before the
Tribunal, as was also found by it for the
immediately two preceding years,
meriting its dismissal, or it is not so, so
that the matter would require a set aside
to the file of the assessing authority for
verification?
(b) In any view of the matter, is there
                                              20
any scope for application of the
decisions in the case of CIT v. Nagri
Mills Co. Ltd.[1958] 33 ITR 681
(Bom.) and CIT v. Vishnu Industrial
Gases      (P).Ltd.    (Del.,in   ITA
No.229/1988 dated 06/5/2008), relied
upon by the assessee, in the facts and
circumstances of the case?

2.(a) Does the question as to whether
the assessee's Unit(Degana Mine)
constitutes a distinct and separate
business or not, a relevant factor in
deciding its claim in respect of
`Extraordinary Items', made at Rs.
304.82 lakhs?
(b) Whether the assessee's said claim
can, in any case, be decided on the
basis of the material on record, or it
required to be set aside back to the file
of the Assessing Officer for fresh
determination and adjudication?

3.(a) Whether, the adjudication of the
assessee's claim in respect of `Mine
Development Expenses' (for Rs.688.62
lakhs.) made in two separate sums of
Rs. 568.07 lakhs and Rs. 120.55 lakhs,
is , in the facts and circumstances of the
case, to be made considering it as a
single claim, or separately?
(b) Whether, in any view of the matter,
the said issue warrants being set aside
back to the file of the A.O. for
considering the factual aspects of the
case as well as the decision by the
Tribunal for the immediately two
preceding years, particularly for A.Y.
1996-97       (vide     order   in    ITA
                                             21
                                                                 No.46/JU/2004 dated 30.3.2009), and a
                                                                 decision in light thereof, as well as the
                                                                 law as explained by the Hon'ble courts
                                                                 of law, as in the case of CIT v. Pioneer
                                                                 Minerals [1992] 107 CTR (Raj.) 230,
                                                                 or warrants being allowed as claimed,
                                                                 i.e., under section 37(1) of the Act, in
                                                                 full?

                                                                 4. Whether the issue qua the
                                                                 disallowances under section 40A(9) of
                                                                 the Act (at Rs.350 lakhs) is to be set
                                                                 aside for passing a speaking order in
                                                                 accordance with law after considering
                                                                 the facts of the case, as also decided by
                                                                 the Tribunal for immediately two
                                                                 preceding years, of is to be allowed in
                                                                 the facts and circumstances of this
                                                                 year?
5.   ITA No.             M/s Grass Field     S/Shri              "Whether on the peculiar facts and Hon'ble Vice
     730/JU/2011         Farms & Resorts     1.B.R.Jain,AM.      circumstances of this case, there is any President (Delhi
                         Pvt. Ltd.,Jaipur.   2. V.Durga          justification in sustenance of penalty Zone)
                                             Rao,JM.             imposed under section 271(1) ( c) 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 the (Mumbai Zone)
                                             2. K.G.Bansal,      same agricultural land with standing crops
                                                A.M.             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

                                                                                                                              22
                                                             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.

     RAJKOT BENCH
1.   MA. Nos. 61 to      Shambhubhai     S/Shri              "Whether on the facts and circumstances of   Hon'ble    Vice Adjourned
     66/Rjt/2010(A.O. of Mahadev Ahir,   1.T.K.Sharma, JM.   the case, all the six Miscellaneous          President,      sine-die.
     ITA Nos. 637 to     Gandhidham.     2.D.K.Srivastava,   Appelications filed by the Revenue should    (Ahmedabad
     639 & 707 to                        AM.                 be dismissed or be allowed?"                 Zone)
     709/Rjt/2010)




                                                                                                                             23
                                INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

                              LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.07.2013.

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
      A.Y.2001-2002           Gauwahati.                                  v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT 238
                                                                          ITR 354(Cal).
      RAJKOT BENCH

                                                                                                                                    24
1.   ITA NO. 01/Rjt/2012   M/s Meridian      S/Shri                   "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the       Hon'ble Vice Heard on
                           Impex,Jamnager.   1.T.K.Sharma, JM.        case, the ld. CIT(A) is correct in confirming the    President,   19/06/2013
                                             2. D.K. Srivastava AM.   penalty of Rs. 7,28,621/- levied by the AO u/s       (Ahmedabad
                                                                      271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 OR it          Zone)
                                                                      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.)




                                                                                                                                      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