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: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
« ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi Benches New Delhi The Revised Constitution of Delhi Benches from 28/11/2016 To 01/12/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches Mumbai Statement showing The List of Special Bench Cases Pending for 2016 as on 16/11/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches Mumbai list of order ready for pronouncement on 30/11/2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches Chennaj Revised Constitution For The Week From O5/1212016 To O8/12120-16
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: Vice President’s Secretariat: Hyderabad Constitution Of Hyderabad Benches
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench List Of Division Bench Cases Posted Before Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon'ble Judicial Member & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'ble Accountant Member During The Period From 21.11.2016 To 09.12.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai. List Of Division Bench Cases Posted For Hearing From 25.11.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad. List Of Division Bench Cases Posted For Hearing From 28.11.2016 To 01.12.2016 Before ‘a’ Bench
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench List Of Division Bench Cases Posted Before Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon'ble Judicial Member & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'ble Accountant Member During The Period From 21.11.2016 To 09.12.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench List Of Division Bench Cases Posted Before Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon'ble Judicial Member & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'ble Accountant Member During The Period From 21.11.2016 To 09.12.2016
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches Chennai Constitution for the Week 21/11/2016 To 2411/2016

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.08.2012
August, 30th 2012
                       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
 
 
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