INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.08.2012
Sr Appeal No. Name of the Bench Points involved To whom assigned REMARKS
No Assessee
MUMBAI BENCH
1. ITA No. M/s Kaira Can S/Shri. Reference dt. 25.11.2008 u/s Hon'ble Zonal Vice- Fixed on
6987/Mum/2003 Company Ltd. 1. Sunil Kumar 255(4) of the Income Tax Act President 21.09.2012
ITA No. 5280 & Yadav, J.M. made afresh by S/Shri. Sunil
5281/Mum/2004 2. V.K.Gupta, A.M. Kumar Yadav, J.M. and V.K.
A.Y. 1996-97 to 1998- Gupta, A.M. is as under.
99
"1. Whether the impugned
transactions of leasing out of
assets to the assessee is a lease
transaction or a financial lease?
2. Whether the assessee can be
held to be the owner of the asset
acquired under the above
transactions and is entitled for
depreciation over the said assets
or assessee being a lessee is
entitled to claim the lease rent
paid to the lessor as a revenue
expenditure?"
1
2. ITA Nos. 525 to Mrs. Sumanlata S/Shri. 1. "Whether, non-issuance of the Zonal Vice- Fixed on
530/Mum/2008, Bansal, Mumbai 1. R.S.Padvekar, J.M. notice as provided in Sub.-sec.(2) President(MZ) 11.10.2012
A.Ys.1999-2000 to 2.B.Ramakotaiah, to Section 143 of the I.T. Act in
2004-05 A.M. the case of assessment framed
u/sec.153A, in consequence of
search under sec. 132, is merely
an irregularity and the same is
curable?"
2. "Whether ,on the facts of the
case, failure on the part of the
Assessessing Officer (A.O.) to
issue notice to the assessee as per
provisions of Sub-sec.(2) to
Section 143 shall have the effect
of rendering the entire assessment
framed u/sec. 153A of the Act as
null and void?"
3. ITA 5229/M/2004 & M/s. Standard S/Shri. "Whether on the facts and Shri. R.S.Syal,A.M. After the
5303/M/2004 Chartered Bank 1.R.S.Padvekar,J.M. circumstances of the case interest Disposal of MA
A.Y. 1996-97 2.Rajendra income of Rs.73,92,16,611/- (Rs.
Singh,A.M. 39,23,71,781 + Rs.34,68,44,830)
is asseable to tax in the year under
consideration?"
4. ITA 210/Kol/2008 M/s. Shaw Wallace S/Shri. "Whether, on the facts and in the Hon'ble Vice- Fixed on
A.Y.2004-05 Financial Services 1.R.K.Gupta,J.M. circumstances of the case, the President, (MZ) 17.09.2012
Ltd. 2.Rajendra assessment in the case of assessee
Singh,A.M. for A.Y. 2004-05 can be said to
have been made on a non existent
company and if so, whether the
same can be quashed?"
2
LUCKNOW BENCH
1. ITA No. 141,142,143 Ms Rajya Krishi S/Shri 1."Whether" the CIT(A) has Hon'ble Zonal Vice- Adj Sine die
& 144/LKW/2009 Utpadan mandi 1. I.S.Verma,J.M. jurisdiction to decide the President (As per
C.O.No.06 to Parishad, Lucknow 2. N.K.Saini, A.M. assessee's petition for stay or order dt.20.09.2011 of
09/LKW/2009 recovery of demand during the the Hon'ble
A.Y.2001-02,2002- pendency of assessee's appeal President) Shri
03,2003- furnished under section 246A of H.L.Karwa as Zonal
04 &2006-07 the Act?" Vice-President to hear
as a Third Member."
2. "If the CIT(A) has jurisdiction
to decide the assessee's petition
for stay of recovery of demend ,
than under which provisions of
law the CIT(A) will pass such an
order i.e. what will be the nature
or status of such order passed by
the CIT(A)?"
3. "Whether, such order (supra)
passed by the CIT(A) is
appealable before the Tribunal or
not i.e. can such an order be
appealed against before the
Tribunal by way of an appeal
under section 253 of the Act, or
can be challenged only before the
Hon'ble High Court by way of
writ petition?"
4. "If such an order(Supra) is
found to be appealable before the
Tribunal, then can the Tribunal
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
3
other orders appealable under
section 246A of the Act, as the
case may be, for the reason that
the CIT(A) has not preferred to
decide the assessee's appeal
pending before him?"
2. ITA No. M/s Zazsons S/Shri. "Whether, on the facts and the Zonal Vice-President Adjourned Sine
219/LKW/2009 and Exports Ltd. 1. I.S.Verma, J.M. circumstances of the case as well die
C.O.No.23/Lck/ 2009 Kanpur 2.N.K.Saini, A.M. as in law, the Revenue's ground
A.Y.2005-06 Nos.3 to 6 be allowed or not?"
3. SP No.03/Lkw/2012 Smt.Uma Pandey, S/Shri. SP No.03/Lkw/2012 Hon'ble Hearing is
(A/o ITA Sunil Kumar President,I.T.A.T. awaited.
188/Lkw/2010) Yadav,J.M. "Whether, the stay earlier granted
A.Y. 2007-08 2.B.R.Jain,A.M. by the Tribunal can be extended
SP.No.04/Lkw/2012 M/s.State Urban till disposal of the appeal in a case
(A/o ITA Development where the appeal has been heard
103/Lkw/2012) Agency. by the Tribunal and is pending
A.Y. 2007-08 with the Members for order?"
Sd/-
J.M.
"Whether, on the peculiar facts,
circumstances of this case and in
law, there is any justification in
extending the stay of the disputed
demand that already had run
beyond 365 days or the
application so made by the
assessee is liable to be rejected?"
Sd/-
A.M.
SP No.04/Lkw/2012
"Whether, under the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
4
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. 188/Lkw/2010 Smt. Uma Pandey S/Shri. "Whether, under the facts and Shri.G.D.Agarwal, To be fixed
A.Y. 2007-08 1.Sunil Kumra circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Vice-
Yadav,J.M. payments received by the assessee President (LZ)
2.B.R.Jain,A.M. from M/s. Amit Poly Yarn Ltd.
(now known as M/s Amitech Ind.
Ltd) are receipt as an advance
against sales made during the
course of commercial transactions
and therefore provisions of section
2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act,
1961 are not attracted to these
payments or the aforesaid
payments are purely an
advance/loan made to the
assessee, attracting the provisions
of section 2(22)(e) of the Act?
"Whether, the issue of allotment
of shares for Rs.10 lakhs can be
restored to the Assessing Officer
to investigate the fact as to
whether the allotment of shares
was unilateral act of the company
i.e M/s. Amitech Ind. Ltd. or the
allotment was done at the instance
of the assessee in order determine
the applicability of provisions of
section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the
benefit accrued to the assessee on
allotment of shares or addition of
Rs.10 lakhs can be confirmed by
5
holding that benefit accrued to the
assessee on allotment of shares
attracts provisions of section
2(22)(e) of the Act on the basis of
material available on record?"
Sd/- Sd/-
J.M. A.M
AGRA BENCH
1. ITA No. J.M.Agarwal S/Shri. 1. "Whether, in the given facts Shri.G.D.Agarwal, Adjourned Sine
92/Agr/2008 & Tabacco Co. & 1.Hari Om Maratha, and circumstances of the case Hon'ble Vice- - die
93/Agr/2008 J.M.Agarwal J.M. when disturbed. The AO has not President (DZ)
A.Y.1998-99 Tabacco Co. (P) 2. Sanjay Arora,A.M. the Trading results and the
Ltd. assessee has explained certain
incriminating Evidences found by
the Central Excise Department,
particularly when the purchases
and sales are found fully vouched
and verifiable, the entire
Investment can be treated as
excess sale and be added to the
total income of the assessee or
not?"
2. "Whether, in a case of a
Company the 3 telephone and car
running expenses can be
disallowed and added in the hands
of the company on account of
personal user of telephone/car by
its director (s) or not?
3. "Whether, when the assessee's
trading account has been accepted
in toto, and the GRs were
explained with reference to books
of accounts, the non-production of
copies of GRs can lead to
addition, as has been done in this
case or not?"
6
JABALPUR BENCH
1. ITA No. Shri. Anil Jaiswal, S/Shri "Whether on the facts and the Hon'ble President, ----
327/Jab/2009 Jabalpur 1.I.S.Verma, J.M. circumstances of the case as well I.T.A.T.
A25/10-2004 2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M. as in law, the CIT(A) was justified
in deleting the addition made,
while making assessment under
section 153A read with section
143(3) of the Act on protective
basis?"
PATNA BENCH(
Circuit Bench, Ranchi)
1 MA No. Shri. Ghasi Ram S/Shri. "Whether, on the facts and in the Hon'ble Zonal Vice Pending for
11 (Pat) / 2007 arising Agarwal, Ranchi 1. B. R. Mittal, J.M. circumstances of the case, the President (KZ) hearing.
out in 2. B.K. Haldar, A.M. application of the department for
IT(SS)A No. recall of the order of the
45/Pat/05) A.Y. 86-87 Tribunal dt. 21st June, 2006
to 97-98 passed in IT(ss)A No. 91(Pat)/05
to delete the amount of
Rs.45,823/- is to be allowed as
held by the learned Accountant
Member or is to be rejected as
held by the learned Judicial
Member."
2 Int. Tax Appeal M/s Coalsesce S/Shri. "Whether, in the facts and Hon'ble Zonal Vice- Pending for
Nos. 06 to 08/Pat/06 Investment (P) Ltd., 1. B. R. Mittal, J.M. circumstances of the case, the President hearing.
A.Ys.1997-98 to 1999- Ranchi 2. B.K. Haldar, A.M. assessee was liable under the
2000 Interest Tax Act to pay interest tax
on the gross interest received on
the loans and advances granted by
it during the impugned assessment
years."
GUWAHATI
BENCHES
1 ITA 47, 48 and M/s Purbanchal S/Shri. 1. "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble President, Not yet fixed.
49(Gau)/2004 Safety Glassess (P) 1.Hemant Sausarkar, circumstances of the case the Ld. I.T.A.T.
A.Y.1996-97, 1997-98 Ltd., Guwahati. J.M. CIT(A) was justified in deleting
& 2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M. the additions made by the A.O.
1998-99 under section 69 of the Act as
7
undisclosed investment amounting
to Rs. 9,21,461/-, Rs.2,20,990 and
Rs.3,66,526/- for the assessment
years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-
99 respectively on the ground that
the reassessments made by the
A.O. for the assessment years in
question were based on the
information received from Bureau
of Investigation (Economic
Offence) (Guwahati) and that the
information was based on material
and documentary evidence to
substantiate the assessments?"
2. "Whether on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case the
order of the Ld.CIT(A) is required
to be set aside with the direction
to decide the issue afresh after
giving proper opportunity to the
assessee on the relevant
information received by the A.O.
on 25.02.2003 from the Bureau of
Investigation (Economic
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
8
and subsequent assessment
made by the A.O. is justified?"
As per the order dt.16.04.2008
of the Hon'ble President
"All the three questions would be
considered u/s 255(4) by the
President."
2. ITA Nos. 96, 97 & Brooke Bond India S/Shri. 1." Whether, the learned CIT(A) Shri.Pramod Adj. Sine -die
98(Gau)/2002 Ltd., Calcutta. 1.Hemant Sausarkar, has erred in law and in facts in Kumar,A.M.
A.Y.1990-91, 1991-92, J.M. directing the A.O. to consider the
1992-93 2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M. income from interest and dividend
as business income for the
purpose of eligible deduction u/s
32AB of the Act, in view of the
decision in the case of CIT Vs.
Dinjoy Tea Estate (P) Ltd. (1997)
224 ITR 263 (Gau), 271 ITR 123
(Cal), 273 ITR 470 (Mad) and 224
ITR 263 (Gau)?"
2. "Whether, this Bench of the
Tribunal working under the
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
Guawahati High Court can allow
the claim of the assessee that
income from interest and dividend
is to be taken as business income
for the purpose of eligible
deduction u/s 32 AB of the Act in
view of the decisions in the cases
of (i) Britania Industries Ltd. Vs.
JCIT (2004) 271 ITR 123 (Cal)
and (ii) DCIT Vs.United Nilgiris
Tea Estate Co. Ltd.(2005) 273
ITR 470 (Mad)?"
9
3. "Whether, on the facts and
circumstances of the case the
claim of expenditure of
Rs.94,363/- and Rs.1,26,718/-
attributable to the foreign tour of
Mrs. R. Sen, wife of the director,
Mr. D. Sen, was not wholly and
exclusively for the purpose of
business?"
4. "Whether, in view of change of
stand by the assessee regarding
nature and purpose of expenditure
taken before the Ld.CIT(A) for
the first time the issue was
required to be restored to the A.O.
for fresh adjudication after
enquiring into the claim of the
assessee?"
4. ITA No. 09/Gau/2006 Shri. Shyam Sunder S/Shri. (1) "Whether, on the basis of Hon'ble President, Not yet fixed.
A.Y.2002-2003 Malpani, Jorhat Hemant Sausarkar, facts and in the circumstances of I.T.A.T.
J.M. the case, the assessee is entitled to
B.R.Kaushik, A.M. deduction u/s 80IB?"
(2) "Whether, in view of the
decision in the case of CIT Vs
Down Town Hospital Ltd. 251
ITR 683 (Gau), the issue was
required to be restored to the
learned CIT(A) for fresh
adjudication after ascertaining
whether all the conditions u/s 80
IB are fulfilled?"
10
5. ITA No.161/Gau/2003 M/s 3R, Gauwahati. S/Shri 1. "Whether in the facts and Shri. D.K.Tyagi,J.M. Not yet fixed
Block period f 1989-90 1. Hement Sausarkar, circumstances of these cases the
to 1998-99 & 1999- J.M. block assessments can be
2000. 2. B.R.Kaushik, A.M. considered invalid?"
ITA No.162/Gau/2004 M/s Panbazar
Block period 1989-90 Diagnostic Centre,
to 1998-99 & 1999- Guwahati. 2. "Whether, in the facts and ------ do -------
2000 circumstances of these cases it can
be held that the A.O. did not bring
on record the prima facie evidence
for invoking jurisdiction and
initiation of proceedings u/s 158
BD of the Act?"
BANGALORE
BENCH
1. MP.No 41/Bang/2010 Shri Mahesh S/Shri/Smt. 1."Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble Vice- Fixed on
(ITA 773/B/10) Hasmukh Boriya, 1.P.Madhavi Devi, the circumstances of the case, President (BZ) 28.09.2012
J.M. there is any mistake apparent from
2. A.Mohan record rectifiable u/s 254(2) of
Alankamony A.M. the IT Act, when the Tribunal
adjudicated the Revenue's appeal
on the sole ground of limitation in
favour of the Revenue, but not
remitted back the issue to CIT(A)
for adjudication on merits when
such an issue of remission/merits
was not before the Tribunal either
by a prayer submission or cross
objection by the Assessee/AR
other than the only argument to
defend his ground on
technicality?"
11
2."Whether, the inclusion of a
copy of a favourable judgment to
the assessee on the issue of merits
in the paperbook produced before
the ITAT would amount to be a
ground or submission enabling the
assessee to invoke the rectification
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, when
during the course of the hearing
there were no such arguments or
submission on merits/remission
before the Tribunal by the
Assessee/AR?"
COCHIN BENCH
1. ITA 720/Coch/2010 Al-Ameen S/Shri. "Whether levy of penalty under Hon'ble Yet to be fixed.
A.Y.2005-06 & Educational Trust 1.N.Vijaykumaran, section 271D is justified?" President,I.T.A.T.
ITA 721/Coch/2010 J.M.
A.Y.2006-07 2.Sanjay Arora,A.M. Sd/-
J.M.
1"Whether, on facts, and in the
circumstances of the case, penalty
u/s.271D to the extent of Rs.79.40
lacs and Rs.15.25 lacs for the two
consecutive years, is liable to be
levied, or not?
2."Whether, on facts and in the
circumstances of the case, penalty
levied u/s.271D to the extent of
Rs.49.40 lacs (for A.Y. 2005-06),
is liable to be deleted, or restored
back to the file of the assessing
authority for the necessary factual
determination, whereupon only
the law can be applied?"
Sd/-
A.M.
12
RAJKOT
BENCH
1. ITA 361/Rjt/1999 Shri. R.K.Mehta Shri. "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri.G.C.Gupta, Fixed on
T.K.Sharma,A.M. circumstances of the case and Hon'ble Vice- 27.08.12
material on record the addition of President (AZ)
Rs. 40,000/- made by AO on
account of investment in
household expenses should be
deleted or restricted to
Rs.30,000/-."
"Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the
addition of Rs. 2,60,000/- in
proprietary business namely M/s.
Associated Apparels which was
set up by the assessee representing
himself before concerned
authority as R.P. Pandya should
be deleted or setaside to the file of
A.O. for ascertaining the actual
amount of investment in shed
machinery etc.
2. ITA 307/Rjt/2011 Shri. Ashwinkumar S/Shri . "Whether, on the facts and Shri.G.C.Gupta, Fixed on
S. Kotecha 1.T.K.Sharma,J.M. circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Vice- 28/08/2012
2. A.L.Gehlot,A.M. appeal of the assessee for the President (AZ)
Assessment Year 2005-06 be
dismissed or addition sustained
by ld.CIT(A), be reduced to
Rs.29,325/-"
13
CHANDIGARH
BENCH
1. ITA No. Shri . R.K.Garg S/Shri . Per J.M. Hon'ble Vice Fixed on
142/CHD/1999 1.M.A.Bakshi, VP 1. "Whether, on the facts and in President 31.08.2012
A.Y.97-98 2. N.K.Saini. A.M. the circumstances of this case, the (Chandigarh)
ITA 550, 489, 586, 587 guarantee commission received by
& 588/CHD/99 the assessees is a revenue receipt
A.Y.87-88, 90-91, 98- or a capital receipt?"
99, 1999-2000 & 2000-
2001 2. "Whether, the decision of the
Tribunal in assessee's own case
for the assessment year 88-89 to
the effect that the guarantee
commission is a revenue receipt is
inapplicable in view the decision
of the Hon'ble Madras High Court
ITA No. Smt. Sunaina Garg in the case of CIT v. Pondicherry
143/CHD/1999 Industrial Promotion
A.Y.97-98 Development & Investment
ITA Nos. 589, 590 & Corporation Ltd. (supra), and the
591/CHD/2002 decision of Delhi High Court in
A.Y. 1998-99, the case of Suessen Textile
1999-2000, Bearings Ltd. etc. v. Union of
2000-2001 India etc. (supra)?"
Shri . R.K.Garg, &
ITA 503/CHD/2002 Sons(HUF) 3. "Whether, on the facts and in
A.Y. 1997-98 the circumstances of the case, the
additional ground raised by the
revenue for the assessment year
90-91 only deserves to be
admitted and matter for all the
assessment years remitted to the
CIT(A) for giving an opportunity
to the AO to distinguish the two
High Courts cases, referred to
above notwithstanding the fact
that both the Members of the
Bench have decided the issue
relating to assessability of the
14
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."
15
AMRITSAR BENCH
1. IT(SS)A No. Sh.Vinod Goel S/Shri Shri H.S.Sidhu. Zonal Vice President Pending for
14/ASR/2005. 1. H.S. Sidhu, J.M. fixation
2.Mehar Singh,A.M. 1."Whether, on the facts and in
IT(SS)A M/s Sidhant the circumstances of present case,
No.13/ASR/2005. Deposits & the issues in the present appeals
Advances(P) Ltd. are covered by the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
IT(SS)A M/s Trimurti case of Manish Maheshwary Vs.
No.12/ASR/2005 Deposits & ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC)
Advances (P) Ltd. and the decision of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in
Income tax Appeal No.519 of
2009 decided on 20-7-2010 in the
case of CIT-I, Ludhiana Vs.
Mridula Prop. Dhruv fabics,
Ludhiana?"
2."Whether, on the facts and in
the circumstances of the present
case, non-production of records by
the revenue in spite of various
opportunities given to them,
benefit should go to the revenue
or the asessee?"
3."Whether, on the facts and in
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?"
16
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 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?"
17
JAIPUR BENCH
1. ITA No. 937/Jp/2011 M/s. Mahaveer S/Shri Shri R.K. Gupta, JM. Hon'ble Vice Pending
Exports, Jaipur. 1.R.K.Gupta, JM. President
2.Sanjay Arora,A.M. 1. "Whether, in the facts and (Chandigarh Zone)
circumstance, the addition of
Rs.3,58,455/- made by one of the
partners S mt.Kanta Nowlkha is
liable to be deleted or to be
confirmed?"
2. "Whether, in the facts and
circumstances, the addition of Rs.
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
18
and source of a case credit found
recorded by him in his books of
account for the relevant year, or is
the Revenue also required to
establish that the assessee had in
existence a source of income
before the date on which such
cash credit was recorded, i.e., in
order to treat the same as
unexplained u/s. 68?"
2. "Whether, the addition of the
impugned sums as unexplained
credits u/s.68 can be deleted on
the sole ground that the assessee
had no source of income prior to
the date on which the same were
found recorded in the assessee's
books of account, notwithstanding
the fact that it 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
19
jurisdictional high court in CIT v.
Kishorilal Santoshilal (1995)216
ITR 9 (Raj.)?"
4.1 "Whether, can capital be
contributed by a partner to a
partnership-firm prior to the
coming into existence of the said
firm? In any case, whether the
claim of capital contribution by
way of transfer of goods on June
1,2006 can be accepted in view of
the fact that the assessee-firm
itself came into existence only on
July 11,2006?"
4.2 "Is the remand in the case of
two cash credits of Rs. 1 lac
each in the name of two
partners justified under the
facts and circumstances of
the case, even as
contemplated by the Hon,ble
jurisdictional high court in
the case of Rajshree
Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CIT
(2002) 256 ITR 331 (Raj.)?"
2. ITA No.363 & M/s Escorts Heart S/Shri Shri R.K.Gupta,J.M. Hon'ble Vice Pending
326/Jp/2011 Institute & 1.R.K.Gupta,JM. President (Delhi
A.Y.2008-09. Research 2.Sanjay Arora,AM. 1. Whether in the facts and Zone)
Centre,Jaipur. circumstances of the case, the
ITA No.1123/Jp/2011 Escort Heart Super provisions of section 194J are
A.Y.2009-10. Speciality Hospital applicable on the payments made
Ltd.,Jaipur. to blood bank ?
2. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
provisions of section 192 or
20
section 194J are applicable in case
of retainer doctors ?
3. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, on the
mark up/profits earned by Fortis
Health World Ltd. (FHWL) on
sale of medicines to the assessee
is a commission chargeable to tax
under section 194H or is a sale on
which provisions of section194H
are not applicable?
4. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, on the
mark up/profits the provisions of
section 194C can be invoked by
the Tribunal where neither this is
a case of department nor of the
assessee ?
Shri Sanjay Arora, AM.
1.1 Whether the payments to the
blood banks for carrying out
investigation procedures, are, in
the facts and circumstances of the
case, made by the assessee-
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
21
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 u/s. 194C of the Act?
22
3. ITA No. 110/JP/2012 Smt. Asha S/Shri Whether in the facts and Shri G.D.Agarwal, Pending
Mandowra,Jaipur. 1. R.K.Gupra, circumstances of the present case, Vice-President(DZ)
JM. the order of Ld. CIT(A) is liable
2. Sanjai Arora. to be confirmed or liable to be
AM. restored to his file to pass a fresh
order ?
4. MA. No. 11/JP/2011 Shri Deepak S/Shri Whether in the facts and Shri G.D.Agarwal, Pending
(A.O.of ITA No. Delela,Jaipur. 1. R.K.Gupta, circumstances of the present case, Vice-President(DZ)
13/JP/10) JM. the order of Tribunal in Misc.
2. Sanjai Arora, Application No.11/JP/2011
AM. arising out of the order of the
Tribunal in ITA No.13/JP/2010
relating to Assessment Year 2006-
07 is liable to be allowed by
recalling the order of the Tribunal
or to be dismissed.?
JODHPUR BENCH
1. ITA No.362(JU)/10 Smt. Supriya S/Shri "Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble Vice- Adjourned
Kanwar, Jodhpur. 1.Joginder Singh,J.M. circumstances of the case, solitary President (CZ) Sine-die
2. K.G. Bansal,A.M. transaction of purchase and sale of
the same agricultural land with
standing crops situated beyond the
prescribed municipal limits,
amounts to adventure in the nature of
trade?"
Sd/-
(Joginder Singh)
J.M.
"Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and sale
of five pieces of agricultural land
with standing crop, by way of
separate conveyance deeds, beyond
the prescribed distance from any
municipal council, amount to
transactions on capital account or
adventure in the nature of trade?"
Sd/-
(K.G.Bansal)
A.M.
23
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.08.2012.
Sr. Appeal No. Name of the Bench Points involved To Whom Remarks
No Assessee assigned
PUNE BENCH
1. ITA No. M/s Audyogik S/Shri. 1. "In the facts and circumstances of the case, Zonal Vice- Heard on
1712/PN/2007, Shikshan Mandal, 1. Mukul Shrawat, J.M. whether the property of the trust i.e. car, be President(MZ) 27.07.2012.
for A.Y. 2004-05. Pune, 2.D. Karunakara Rao, held `made available' for the use of the
A.M. trustee, specified person u/s 13(3) of the
Income Tax Act 1961?"
2. "In the facts and circumstances of the case,
whether the expression `made available for
the use of' trustee ipso facto be understood to
have been deemed used or applied for the
benefit of the said trustee, with or without
the actual use or application of the property
of the trust i.e. car for personal benefit of the
trustee in view of section 13(2) of the Income
Tax Act 1961?"
3. "In the facts and circumstances of the
case, whether the case of the assessee falls
within the ambit of the provisions of clause
(b) of 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."
24
DELHI BENCH
1. ITA No. Bhagwati Prasad S/Shri. "Whether, on facts and circumstances of the Hon'ble Heard on
1868/Del/2011 Maheswari 1.I.P.Bansal,J.M. case and in law the impugned issue should be President,I.T.A. 20.07.2012
2.B.K.Haldar, A.M. restored back to the Assessing Officer with a T.
direction that both the assessee and
Assessing Officer should comply with the
directions given in the earlier order of the
Tribunal dated 8th June,2007 or the same be
decided against the appellant."
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
2. ITA No. 20/Gau/2005 Guwahati. 2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M. view of decisions in the following cases-
A.Y.2001-2002 M/s Shiva Sakti Heard on
Floor Mills (P) i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR 847 04.04.2012
C.O.No.02/Gau/2005 Ltd., Tinsukia (Gau)
ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And
Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC)
3. ITA No.165/Gau/2004 M/s Virgo iii) DCIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003)
A.Y.2001-2002 Cements Ltd., 263 ITR 357 (Gau) Heard on
Guwahati. iv) CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products Ltd. 251 03.04.2012
ITR 427(SC) and
v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT
238 ITR 354(Cal).
25
|
