INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.01.2013
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 Adjourned Sine
6987/Mum/2003 Company Ltd. 1. Sunil Kumar 255(4) of the Income Tax Vice-President die
ITA No. 5280 & Yadav, J.M. Act made afresh by S/Shri.
5281/Mum/2004 2. V.K. Gupta, Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.M.
A.Y. 1996-97 to A.M. and V.K. Gupta, A.M. is as
1998-99 under.
"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 Zonal Vice- Fixed on
530/Mum/2008, Bansal, Mumbai 1. R.S. Padvekar, the notice as provided in President(MZ) 04.02.2013
A.Ys.1999-2000 to J.M. Sub.-sec.(2) to Section 143 of
2004-05 2.B.Ramakotaiah, the I.T. Act in the case of
A.M. 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. After the
& 5303/M/2004 Chartered Bank 1.R.S.Padvekar, circumstances of the case R.S.Syal,A.M. Disposal of MA
A.Y. 1996-97 J.M. interest income of
2.Rajendra Singh, Rs.73,92,16,611/- (Rs.
A.M. 39,23,71,781 +
Rs.34,68,44,830) is asseable
to tax in the year under
consideration?"
2
PUNE BENCH
1. ITA No. M/s Audyogik S/Shri. 1. "In the facts and Zonal Vice- Ajd. Sine-die
1712/PN/2007, Shikshan Mandal, 1. Mukul Shrawat, circumstances of the case, President(MZ)
for A.Y. 2004-05. Pune, J.M. whether the property of the
2.D. Karunakara trust i.e. car, be held `made
Rao, A.M. available' for the use of the
trustee, specified person u/s
13(3) of the Income Tax Act
1961?"
2. "In the facts and
circumstances of the case,
whether the expression `made
available for the use of'
trustee ipso facto be
understood to have been
deemed used or applied for
the benefit of the said trustee,
with or without the actual use
or application of the property
of the trust i.e. car for
personal benefit of the trustee
in view of section 13(2) of the
Income Tax Act 1961?"
3. "In the facts and
circumstances of the case,
whether the case of the
assessee falls within the ambit
of the provisions of clause (b)
of section 13(2) of the Income
tax Act 1961?"
4. "If the answers to above
questions at sr. No. (1) to (3)
are affirmative, whether the
denial of benefits of section
11 be restricted to such
income of the trust used or
3
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."
LUCKNOW
BENCHES
1. ITA No. Ms Rajya Krishi S/Shri 1."Whether" the CIT(A) has Hon'ble Zonal Adjourned Sine
141,142,143 & Utpadan mandi 1. I.S.Verma,J.M. jurisdiction to decide the Vice-President (As die
144/LKW/2009 Parishad, 2. N.K.Saini, A.M. assessee's petition for stay or per order
C.O.No.06 to Lucknow recovery of demand during dt.20.09.2011 of
09/LKW/2009 the pendency of assessee's the Hon'ble
A.Y.2001-02,2002- appeal furnished under President) Shri
03,2003- section 246A of the Act?" H.L.Karwa as
04 &2006-07 Zonal Vice-
2. "If the CIT(A) has President to hear as
jurisdiction to decide the a Third Member."
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
4. "If such an order(Supra) is
found to be appealable before
the Tribunal, then can the
Tribunal entertain such an
appeal against such order
without there being appeal
before it against the order of
CIT(A) in appeal against the
order of the Assessing Officer
or other orders appealable
under section 246A of the
Act, as the case may be, for
the reason that the CIT(A) has
not preferred to decide the
assessee's appeal pending
before him?"
2. ITA No. M/s Zazsons S/Shri. "Whether, on the facts and Zonal Vice- Adjourned Sine
219/LKW/2009 and Exports Ltd. 1. I.S.Verma, J.M. the circumstances of the case President die
C.O.No.23/Lck/ Kanpur 2.N.K.Saini, A.M. as well as in law, the
2009 A.Y.2005-06 Revenue's ground Nos.3 to 6
be allowed or not?"
3. SPNo.03/Lkw/2012 Smt.Uma Pandey, S/Shri. SP No.03/Lkw/2012 Hon'ble President, Hearing is
(A/o ITA Sunil Kumar I.T.A.T. awaited.
188/Lkw/2010) Yadav,J.M. "Whether, the stay earlier
A.Y. 2007-08 2.B.R.Jain,A.M. granted by the Tribunal can
SP.No.04/Lkw/201 M/s.State Urban be extended till disposal of
2 Development the appeal in a case where the
(A/o ITA Agency. appeal has been heard by the
103/Lkw/2012) Tribunal and is pending with
A.Y. 2007-08 the Members for order?"
Sd/-
J.M.
"Whether, on the peculiar
facts, circumstances of this
case and in law, there is any
justification in extending the
stay of the disputed demand
5
that already had run beyond
365 days or the application so
made by the assessee is liable
to be rejected?"
Sd/-
A.M.
SP No.04/Lkw/2012
"Whether, under the facts and
circumstances of the case,
the outstanding demand can
be stayed outrightly or subject
to payment of part of demand
in instalments as proposed?"
Sd/- Sd/-
J.M. A.M
4. ITA No. Smt. Uma Pandey S/Shri. "Whether, under the facts and Shri.G.D.Agarwal, Hearing is
188/Lkw/2010 1.Sunil Kumra circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Vice- awaited.
A.Y. 2007-08 Yadav,J.M. payments received by the President (LZ)
2.B.R.Jain,A.M. assessee from M/s. Amit Poly
Yarn Ltd. (now known as M/s
Amitech Ind. Ltd) are receipt
as an advance against sales
made during the course of
commercial transactions and
therefore provisions of
section 2(22)(e) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 are not
attracted to these payments or
the aforesaid payments are
purely an advance/loan made
to the assessee, attracting the
provisions of section 2(22)(e)
of the Act?
"Whether, the issue of
allotment of shares for Rs.10
lakhs can be restored to the
Assessing Officer to
6
investigate the fact as to
whether the allotment of
shares was unilateral act of
the company i.e M/s. Amitech
Ind. Ltd. or the allotment was
done at the instance of the
assessee in order determine
the applicability of provisions
of section 2(22)(e) of the Act
to the benefit accrued to the
assessee on allotment of
shares or addition of Rs.10
lakhs can be confirmed by
holding that benefit accrued
to the assessee on allotment
of shares attracts provisions
of section 2(22)(e) of the Act
on the basis of material
available on record?"
Sd/- Sd/-
J.M. A.M
AGRA BENCH
1. ITA No. J.M.Agarwal S/Shri. 1. "Whether, in the given Shri.G.D.Agarwal, Fixed on
92/Agr/2008 & Tabacco Co. & 1.Hari Om facts and circumstances of the Hon'ble Vice- 11/01/2013.
93/Agr/2008 J.M.Agarwal Maratha, J.M. case when disturbed. The AO President (DZ)
A.Y.1998-99 Tabacco Co. (P) 2. Sanjay Arora, has not the Trading results
Ltd. A.M. and the 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?"
7
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?"
JABALPUR
BENCH
1. ITA No. Shri. Anil S/Shri "Whether on the facts and the Hon'ble President, ----
327/Jab/2009 Jaiswal, Jabalpur 1.I.S.Verma, J.M. circumstances of the case as I.T.A.T.
A25/10-2004 2.B.R.Kaushik, well as in law, the CIT(A)
A.M. was justified in deleting the
addition made, while making
assessment under section
153A read with section
143(3) of the Act on
protective basis?"
KOLKATA
BENCH
ITA Nos. M/s Shyam Steel S/Shri "Whether in the facts and Hon'ble Vice-
65/Kol/2010, & Industries Ltd., 1.George Mathan, circumstances of the case the President
655/Kol/2011. Kolkata. J.M. power subsidy received by Chennai/Kolkata
A.Y.2006-07 2007- 2.C.D.Rao, A.M. the assessee is capital in Zone.
08 nature or revenue in nature ?"
8
PATNA BENCH
(Circuit
Bench,Ranchi)
1 MA No. Shri. Ghasi Ram S/Shri. "Whether, on the facts and in Hon'ble Zonal Pending for
11 (Pat) / 2007 Agarwal, Ranchi 1. B. R. Mittal, the circumstances of the case, Vice President hearing.
arising out in J.M. the application of the (KZ)
IT(SS)A No. 2. B.K. Haldar, department for recall of the
45/Pat/05) A.Y. 86- A.M. order of the Tribunal dt.
87 to 97-98 21st June, 2006 passed in
IT(ss)A No. 91(Pat)/05 to
delete the amount of
Rs.45,823/- is to be allowed
as held by the learned
Accountant Member or is to
be rejected as held by the
learned Judicial Member."
2 Int. Tax Appeal M/s Coalsesce S/Shri. "Whether, in the facts and Hon'ble Zonal Pending for
Nos. 06 to Investment (P) 1. B. R. Mittal, circumstances of the case, the Vice-President hearing.
08/Pat/06 Ltd., Ranchi J.M. assessee was liable under the
A.Ys.1997-98 to 2. B.K. Haldar, Interest Tax Act to pay
1999-2000 A.M. 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 Hon'ble President, Not yet fixed.
49(Gau)/2004 Safety Glassess 1.Hemant and circumstances of the case I.T.A.T.
A.Y.1996-97, 1997- (P) Ltd., Sausarkar, J.M. the Ld. CIT(A) was justified
98 & Guwahati. 2.B.R.Kaushik, in deleting the additions made
1998-99 A.M. by the A.O. under section 69
of the Act as undisclosed
investment amounting to Rs.
9,21,461/-, Rs.2,20,990 and
Rs.3,66,526/- for the
assessment years 1996-97,
1997-98 and 1998-99
respectively on the ground
9
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
10
that the reopening of
assessment and
subsequent assessment
made by the A.O. is
justified?"
As per the order
dt.16.04.2008 of the
Hon'ble President
"All the three questions
would be considered u/s
255(4) by the President."
2. ITA Nos. 96, 97 & Brooke Bond S/Shri. 1." Whether, the learned Shri.Pramod Adjourned Sine
98(Gau)/2002 India Ltd., 1.Hemant CIT(A) has erred in law and Kumar, A.M. -die
A.Y.1990-91, 1991- Calcutta. Sausarkar, J.M. in facts in directing the A.O.
92, 1992-93 2.B.R.Kaushik, to consider the income from
A.M. interest and dividend as
business income for the
purpose of eligible deduction
u/s 32AB of the Act, in view
of the decision in the case of
CIT Vs. Dinjoy Tea Estate
(P) Ltd. (1997) 224 ITR 263
(Gau), 271 ITR 123 (Cal),
273 ITR 470 (Mad) and 224
ITR 263 (Gau)?"
2. "Whether, this Bench of
the Tribunal working under
the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
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
11
(2004) 271 ITR 123 (Cal)
and (ii) DCIT Vs.United
Nilgiris Tea Estate Co.
Ltd.(2005) 273 ITR 470
(Mad)?"
3. "Whether, on the facts and
circumstances of the case the
claim of expenditure of
Rs.94,363/- and Rs.1,26,718/-
attributable to the foreign tour
of Mrs. R. Sen, wife of the
director, Mr. D. Sen, was not
wholly and exclusively for
the purpose of business?"
4. "Whether, in view of
change of stand by the
assessee regarding nature and
purpose of expenditure taken
before the Ld.CIT(A) for the
first time the issue was
required to be restored to the
A.O. for fresh adjudication
after enquiring into the claim
of the assessee?"
3. ITA No. Shri. Shyam S/Shri. (1) "Whether, on the basis of Hon'ble President, Not yet fixed.
09/Gau/2006 Sunder Malpani, Hemant Sausarkar, facts and in the circumstances I.T.A.T.
A.Y.2002-2003 Jorhat J.M. of the case, the assessee is
B.R.Kaushik, entitled to deduction u/s
A.M. 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?"
12
4. ITA 161/Gau/2003 M/s 3R, S/Shri 1. "Whether in the facts and Shri. D.K.Tyagi, Not yet fixed
Block period f Gauwahati. 1. Hement circumstances of these cases J.M.
1989-90 to 1998-99 Sausarkar, J.M. the block assessments can be
& 1999-2000. 2. B.R.Kaushik, considered invalid?"
A.M. 2. "Whether, in the facts and
ITA 162/Gau/2004 M/s Panbazar circumstances of these cases
Block period 1989- Diagnostic it can be held that the A.O.
90 to 1998-99 & Centre, Guwahati. did not bring on record the
1999-2000 prima facie evidence for ------ do -------
invoking jurisdiction and
initiation of proceedings u/s
158 BD of the Act?"
BANGALORE
BENCH
1. MP.No Shri Mahesh S/Shri/Smt. 1."Whether, on the facts and Hon'ble Vice- Fixed on
41/Bang/2010 Hasmukh Boriya, 1.P.Madhavi Devi, in the circumstances of the President (BZ) 01/02/2013
(ITA 773/B/10) J.M. case, there is any mistake
2. A.Mohan apparent from record
Alankamony A.M. rectifiable u/s 254(2) of 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?"
2."Whether, the inclusion of a
copy of a favourable
judgment to the assessee on
13
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?"
CHANDIGARH
BENCH
1. ITA No. Shri . R.K.Garg S/Shri . Per J.M. Hon'ble Vice Adjourned
142/CHD/1999 1.M.A.Bakshi, VP 1. "Whether, on the facts and President sine-dia
A.Y.97-98 2. N.K.Saini. A.M. in the circumstances of this (Chandigarh)
ITA 550, 489, 586, case, the guarantee
587 & 588/CHD/99 commission received by the
A.Y.87-88, 90-91, assessees is a revenue receipt
98-99, 1999-2000 & or a capital receipt?"
2000-2001 2. "Whether, the decision of
the Tribunal in assessee's
own case for the assessment
year 88-89 to the effect that
ITA No. Smt. Sunaina the guarantee commission is a
143/CHD/1999 Garg revenue receipt is
A.Y.97-98 inapplicable in view the
ITA Nos. 589, 590 decision of the Hon'ble
& 591/CHD/2002 Madras High Court in the
A.Y. 1998-99, case of CIT v. Pondicherry
1999-2000, Industrial Promotion
2000-2001 Development & Investment
Corporation Ltd. (supra), and
ITA 503/CHD/2002 Shri . R.K.Garg, the decision of Delhi High
A.Y. 1997-98 & Sons(HUF) Court in the case of Suessen
Textile Bearings Ltd. etc. v.
Union of India etc. (supra)?"
14
3. "Whether, on the facts and
in the circumstances of the
case, the additional ground
raised by the revenue for the
assessment year 90-91 only
deserves to be admitted and
matter for all the assessment
years remitted to the CIT(A)
for giving an opportunity to
the AO to distinguish the two
High Courts cases, referred to
above notwithstanding the
fact that both the Members of
the Bench have decided the
issue relating to assessability
of the guarantee commission
on merits?"
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
15
Suessen Textile bearing Ltd.
and others V Union of India,
CC2 JJX 0082 and Hon'ble
Madras High Court in the
case of CIT V. Pondicherry
Indl Promotion Development
and Investment Corp. Ltd.
(2000) 245 ITR 859, that the
amount received by assessees
was a capital receipt."
AMRITSAR
BENCH
1. IT(SS)A No. Sh.Vinod Goel S/Shri Shri H.S.Sidhu. Zonal Vice Pending for
14/ASR/2005. 1. H.S. Sidhu, 1. "Whether, on the facts President(CZ) fixation
J.M. and in the circumstances of
IT(SS)A M/s Sidhant 2.Mehar Singh, present case, the issues in the
No.13/ASR/2005. Deposits & A.M. present appeals are covered
Advances(P) Ltd. by the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of
IT(SS)A M/s Trimurti Manish Maheshwary Vs.
No.12/ASR/2005 Deposits & ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341
Advances (P) Ltd. (SC) 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?"
16
3. "Whether, on the facts
and in the circumstances of
the present case, it is
mandatory a pre-requisite that
the satisfaction to be recorded
in the cases of persons
searched before issuance of
notice under section 158 BD
of the Income tax Act. 1961
to the assesse i.e. other
person?"
Shri. Mehar Singh, AM.
1. "Whether on the
facts and on law, valid Block
Assessments can be cancelled,
on the ground of assumed non-
production of record indicating
recording of satisfaction u/s
158BD, in a case where such
satisfaction is duly evidenced
by documents available in the
paper book filed by the Deptt.
and reproduced verbatim in the
order dated 06.12.2006 passed
by the Bench and subsequent
M.A. dated 21.01.2009,
dismissed by the Bench,
without even considering such
satisfaction?'
2. " Whether, on the facts
and on law Block
Assessments can be cancelled
by applying the decision of
jurisdictional High Court,
relied upon by the assessee,
which lays down the law that
satisfaction under section
158BD be recorded before the
17
conclusion of the Block
Assessments under section
158BC of the Act, in the
absence of vital details of
dates of completion of such
block assessment being
determinative factor, in
determining the applicability
of the said decision, where
the parties to the disputes
failed to furnish such dates?"
JAIPUR BENCH
1. ITA No. M/s. Mahaveer S/Shri Shri R.K. Gupta, JM. Hon'ble Vice Pending
937/Jp/2011 Exports, Jaipur. 1.R.K.Gupta, JM. 1. "Whether, in the facts and President
2.Sanjay Arora, circumstance, the addition of (Chandigarh Zone)
A.M. Rs.3,58,455/- made by one of
the partners Smt. 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
18
deleted or to be confirmed in
part and partly to be set aside
to the file of Assessing
Officer ?"
Shri Sanjay Arora, AM.
1. "Whether, section 68 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 can be
invoked where the assessee
fails to satisfactorily explain
the nature and source of a
case credit found recorded by
him in his books of account
for the relevant year, or is the
Revenue also required to
establish that the assessee had
in existence a source of
income before the date on
which such cash credit was
recorded, i.e., in order to treat
the same as unexplained u/s.
68?"
2. "Whether, the addition of
the impugned sums as
unexplained credits u/s.68 can
be deleted on the sole ground
that the assessee had no
source of income prior to the
date on which the same were
found recorded in the
assessee's books of account,
notwithstanding the fact that
it has completely failed to
discharge the burden of
satisfactorily explaining the
nature and source thereof?"
19
3. "Whether, the view that a
cash credit recorded in the
books of account of a
partnership firm ostensibly as
capital contributed by a
partner cannot be treated as
unexplained u/s.68 in the
hands of the firm even if the
assesseefirm fails to
satisfactorily explain the
nature and source thereof, and
more particularly if its fails to
adduce evidence to establish
that the alleged capital was
actually contributed by the
partner, is sustainable in law
in view of the decision by the
Hon'ble jurisdictional high
court in CIT v. Kishorilal
Santoshilal (1995)216 ITR 9
(Raj.)?"
4.1 "Whether, can capital be
contributed by a partner to a
partnership-firm prior to the
coming into existence of the
said firm? In any case,
whether the claim of capital
contribution by way of
transfer of goods on June
1,2006 can be accepted in
view of the fact that the
assessee-firm itself came into
existence only on July
11,2006?"
"Is the remand in the case of
two cash credits of Rs. 1 lac
each in the name of two
partners justified under the
20
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, 1. Whether in the facts and President (Delhi
A.Y.2008-09. Research Centre, JM. circumstances of the case, the Zone)
Jaipur. 2. Sanjay Arora, provisions of section 194J are
ITA Escort Heart AM. applicable on the payments
No.1123/Jp/2011 Super Speciality made to blood bank ?"
A.Y.2009-10. Hospital Ltd.,
Jaipur. 2. Whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case,
the provisions of section 192
or section 194J are applicable
in case of retainer doctors ?
3. Whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case,
on the mark up/profits earned
by Fortis Health World Ltd.
(FHWL) on sale of medicines
to the assessee is a
commission chargeable to tax
under section 194H or is a
sale on which provisions of
section194H are not
applicable?
4. Whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case,
on the mark up/profits the
provisions of section 194C
can be invoked by the
Tribunal where neither this is
a case of department nor of
the assessee ?
21
Shri Sanjay Arora, AM.
1.1 Whether the payments to
the blood banks for carrying
out investigation procedures,
are, in the facts and
circumstances of the case,
made by the assessee-hospital
or by its patients?
1.2 Whether, while deciding
an issue under appeal, the
tribunal required to apply its
independent mind thereon,
without being influenced by
the decision by the first
appellate authority for a
subsequent year, particularly
when the same was not
pressed during hearing and,
accordingly, the parties not
heard thereon?
2. I am in agreement with
the Question No. 2 as
proposed by my ld. Brother,
JM.
3.1 Whether, can on the
admitted set of facts brought
on record by the parties, the
inferential finding/s by the
Appellate Tribunal differ
from that of either party
before it, or is it to necessarily
match therewith? Further, is
not the tribunal duty bound
to, in deciding an issue before
it, apply the law as applicable
to the facts found by it,
including such inferential
finding/s?
22
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?
3. ITA No. Smt. Asha S/Shri Whether in the facts and Shri G.D. Agarwal, Pending
110/JP/2012 Mandowra, 1.R.K.Gupra, circumstances of the present Vice-President
Jaipur. JM. case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) (DZ)
2.Sanjai Arora, is liable to be confirmed or
AM. liable to be restored to his file
to pass a fresh order ?
4. MA. No. Shri Deepak S/Shri Whether in the facts and Shri G.D. Agarwal, Pending
11/JP/2011 Delela, Jaipur. 1.R.K.Gupta, circumstances of the present Vice-President
(A.O.of ITA No. JM. case, the order of Tribunal in (DZ)
13/JP/10) 2.Sanjai Arora, Misc. Application
AM. No.11/JP/2011 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.?
23
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, circumstances of the case, President (Mumbai sine-dia
J.M. solitary transaction of Zone)
2. K.G.Bansal, purchase and sale of the same
A.M. 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.
24
RAJKOT BENCH
1. ITA Atul Auto Ltd. S/Shri "Whether on the facts and Hon'ble Vice
No.921/Rjt/2010 Rajkot. 1.T.K.Sharma, circumstances of the case, the President,
J.M. ld.CIT(A) is justified in (Ahmedabad Zone)
2.D.K.Srivastava, directing the AO to grant the
A.M. exemption of Rs.22,96,155/-
u/s.10(34) of the I.T.Act,
1961 in respect of dividend
received by the assessee in
respect of shares held in
subsidiary company and
reflected in the balance-sheet
under the head investments.
Sd/-
(T.K.Sharma)
JM
"whether unreported
judgment, which was never
cited by the parties not
otherwise brought to the
notice of the Bench not to the
notice of the Member
proposing the order, can be
used by another Member for
passing dissenting order
without giving any
opportunity in this behalf to
the parties?
Sd/-
(D.K.Srivastava)
AM
25
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.01.2013.
Sr. Appeal No. Name of the Bench Points involved To Whom Remarks
No Assessee assigned
GUWAHATI BENCH
1. ITA No. 25/Gau/2005 M/s Baid S/Shri. "Whether, on the facts and in the Shri. Pramod Heard on
A.Y.1996-97 Commercial 1.Hemant Sausarkar, circumstances of the case the transport Kumar, A.M. 04.04.2012
Enterprises Ltd., J.M. subsidy is to be treated as capital in nature in
Guwahati. 2.B.R.Kaushik, A.M. view of decisions in the following cases-
Heard on
2. ITA No. 20/Gau/2005 M/s Shiva Sakti i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR 847 04.04.2012
A.Y.2001-2002 Floor Mills (P) (Gau)
Ltd., Tinsukia ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And
C.O.No.02/Gau/2005 Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC)
iii) DCIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003)
M/s Virgo 263 ITR 357 (Gau) Heard on
3. ITA No.165/Gau/2004 Cements Ltd., iv) CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products Ltd. 251 03.04.2012
A.Y.2001-2002 Gauwahati. ITR 427(SC) and
v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT
238 ITR 354(Cal).
KOLKATA BENCH
1. ITA 2004/Kol/09, M/s. UAL S/Shri Whether or not in the facts and Dr. O.K. Heard on
1668, 1669/Kol/2011 Industries Ltd., 1.Pramod Kumar, A.M. circumstances of the case `Fly Ash Handling Narayanan, 17.12.2012
Kolkata 2.George Mathan, J.M. System' is eligible to be treated as `Air Zonal Vice
Pollution Control Equipment' for the purpose President
of granting depreciation at 100%?"
26
COCHIN BENCH
1. ITA 720/Coch/2010 Al-Ameen S/Shri. "Whether levy of penalty under section Hon'ble Vice Heard on
A.Y.2005-06 & Educational Trust 1.N.Vijaykumaran, 271D is justified?" President(BZ). 14.12.2012
ITA 721/Coch/2010 J.M. Sd/-
A.Y.2006-07 2.Sanjay Arora, A.M. 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
determi-nation, where upon only the law can
be applied?
Sd/-
A.M
MUMBAI BENCH
1. ITA 210/Kol/2008 M/s. Shaw S/Shri. "Whether, on the facts and in the Hon'ble Vice- Heard on
A.Y.2004-05 Wallace Financial 1.R.K.Gupta,J.M. circumstances of the case, the assessment in President, (MZ) 08.01.2013
Services Ltd. 2.Rajendra Singh,A.M. the case of assessee 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?"
27
|
