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
|
