INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI.

STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.06.2011.

Sr

No

Appeal No. Name of the

Assessee

Bench Points involved To whom

assigned

REMARKS

MUMBAI

BENCH

1. ITA No.

6987/Mum/2003

ITA No. 5280 &

5281/Mum/2004

A.Y. 1996-97 to

1998-99

M/s Kaira Can

Company Ltd.

S/Shri.

1. Sunil Kumar

Yadav, J.M.

2. V.K.Gupta, A.M.

Reference dt. 25.11.2008 u/s 255(4) of the

Income Tax Act made afresh by S/Shri.

Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.M. and V.K.

Gupta, A.M. is as 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?”

Hon’ble

Zonal Vice-

President

Adjourned Sine-die. Fix after

Special Bench Indusind Bank.

As per the order of the Hon’ble

President,

2. ITA No.

210/Kol/08

M/s. Shaw

Wallace Financial

Services Ltd.

1.S/Shri.R.K.Gupta,

J.M.

2. Rajendra Singh,

A.M.

“Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the assessment in

the case of assessee for A.Y. 2004-2005 can

by said to have been made on a non existent

company and if so, whether the same can be

quashed ?

Shri.

D.Manmohan

, Hon’ble

Vice-

President

(MZ)

Fixed on 06.07.2011

3. ITA Nos. 2680 &

2681/Mum/2008

A.Y.2005-06.

Shri. Ismail

Abdulkarim

Balwa., Mumbai,

1.S/Shri.

R.K.Gupta,

J.M.

2.Rajendra Singh,

A.M.

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

of the present case the capital gain on the

sale of property in question is liable to be

taxed on the basis of long term capital gains

or short term capital gains?

2. Whether on the facts of the present case

where the AO in the case of one co-owner

has accepted the gain as long term capital

gains then a different view can be taken in

Shri. D.

Manmohan,

Hon’ble

Vice-

President

(MZ)

Fixed on 02.08.2011

the case of other co-owner?

4. ITA Nos. 525 to

530/Mum/2008,

A.Ys.1999-2000

to 2004-05

Mrs. Sumanlata

Bansal, Mumbai

S/Shri.

1. R.S.Padvekar,

J. M.

2.B.Ramakotaiah,

A.M.

1. Whether non-issuance of the notice as

provided in Sub.-sec.(2) to Section 143 of

the I.T. Act in 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?

Zonal Vice-

President(MZ

)

Fixed on 22.06.2011

PUNE BENCH

1. ITA No.

1712/PN/2007,

for A.Y. 2004-

05.

M/s Audyogik

Shikshan Mandal,

Pune,

S/Shri.

1. Mukul Shrawat,-

- J.M.

2.D. Karunakara

Rao, A.M.

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case,

whether the property of the trust i.e. car, be

held ‘made 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

Zonal Vice-

President(MZ

)

Yet to be fixed

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.”

BILASPUR

BENCH

1. ITA No.

53/Nag/2007

A.Y.1999-2000

M/s Gumla Flour

Mills Ltd., Raipur

S/Shri.

1.Hemant

Sausarkar, J.M.

2.P.M.Jagtap, A.M.

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the addition of Rs.40,11,000/- made by the

Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned

CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash credits

u/s 68 is liable to be deleted as held by the

learned J.M. or the matter needs to be restored to

the file of the A.O. for giving him an opportunity

to decide the same afresh in the light of

documentary evidence filed by the assessee for

the first time before the learned CIT(A) as held

by the learned AM?

2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the disallowance of Rs.1,64,432/- made by

the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on

account of interest paid in respect of the

aforesaid cash credits is liable to be deleted as

held by the learned JM or this matter being

consequential to the main issue relating to the

addition u/s 68 also needs to be restored to the

file of the AO for deciding the same afresh

depending on his decision on the main issue?

Hon’ble

President Yet to be fixed

LUCKNOW

BENCH

1. ITA No.

141,142,143 &

144/LKW/2009

C.O.No.06 to

09/LKW/2009

A.Y.2001-

02,2002-03,2003-

04 &2006-07

Ms Rajya Krishi

Utpadan mandi

Parishad,

Lucknow

1.S/Shri

I.S.Verma,JM.

2. N.K.Saini, A.M.

1.Whether the CIT(A) has jurisdiction to

decide the assessee’s petition for stay or

recovery of demand during the pendency of

assessee’s appeal furnished under section 246A

of the Act?

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

Hon’ble

Zonal Vice-

President (As

per order

dt.05.01.2010

of the

Hon’ble

President

Shri

H.L.Karwa as

Fixed on 05.08.2011

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

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?

Zonal Vice-

President to

hear as a

Third

Member.”)

2. ITA No.

219/LKW/2009

and

C.O.No.23/LKW/

2009 A.Y.2005-

06

M/s Zazsons

Exports Ltd.

Kanpur

1.Shri. I.S.Verma,

J.M.

2.Shri.N.K.Saini,

A.M.

“Whether on the facts and the circumstances

of the case as well as in law, the Revenue’s

ground Nos.3 to 6 be allowed or not?”

Zonal Vice-

President

Fixed on 10.06.2011.

AGRA BENCH

1. ITA No.

169 /Ag/2007

A.Y.1998-99

Shri. Lal Chand

Agarwal, Agra

S/Shri.

1.Hari Om Maratha,

J.M.

2.Sanjay Arora,

A.M.

1. That the learned Commissioner of

Income-tax(Appeals)-II, Agra has erred in

law and on facts in quashing the assessment

order under section 143(3) of the IT Act,

1961.

2. That the learned Commissioner of

Income-tax(Appeals)-II, Agra has erred in

law and on facts in holding that the

Assessing Officer did not base his

assessment order on notice issued under

section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dt.

Hon’ble

Zonal Vice-

President(DZ

)

Adjourned Sine-die

28.03.2005 ignoring the narration mentioned

at para 1.3 of the assessment order.

3.That the learned Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals)-II, Agra has erred in law and

on fact in not appreciating the facts of the

case that as per record, the notice was issued

well within time but the service to the

assessee was not effected on account of his

absence.

4.That the decision of the learned

Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-II,

Agra being erroneous in law and on facts

deserves to be quashed and that of the AO

deserves to be restored.”

2. ITA No.

55/Agr/2007

A.Y.2003-04

Smt. Renu

Agarwal, Mathura

S/Shri.

1.Hari Om Maratha,

J.M.

2.Sanjay Arora,

A.M.

“That the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) was wrong in confirming in

disallowing the gifts received by the

assessee Rs. 4,00,000/- of followings:

a. Shri. Jay Singh Yadav Rs.2,00,000/-

b. Shri. Gajanand Goyal Rs.2,00,000/-

as cash credit and to assess as Income u/s 68

of Income Tax Act by the Ld. Income Tax

Officer.”

Hon’ble

Vice-

President

(DZ)

Adjourned Sine-die

3. ITA No.

323/Agr/2006

A.Y.2001-02

Smt. Amita

Agarwal, Agra

S/Shri.

1.Hari Om Maratha,

J.M.

2.Sanjay Arora,

A.M.

1. Because, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case the authorities

below had fallen in error in making the

addition of Rs.745900/- as alleged

unexplained income of the assessee. The

same of shares has wrongly been

disbelieved. The authorities below acted on

surmises, inadmissible evidences and

irrelevant considerations.

2. Because, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case the evidence as

filed with the Return of Income and as

brought on records by the assessee

establishes the claim of the assessee. The

assessee has thus, discharged the onus that

lay on him. The learned A.O. has not

brought any material to disapprove the sale

Hon’ble

Zonal Vice-

President

Adjourned Sine-die.

of shares resulting into long-term capital

gain.

3.Because, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case the learned A.O.

has fallen in error of fact and in law in

observing that the receipt of money from

sale of shares represents income of the

assessee earned from undisclosed sources.

The onus lay on the learned A.O. to bring

evidence on records to support his finding.

The learned A.O. neither in the assessment

proceedings nor after taking time in

appellate proceedings have been able to

bring evidence on record that in any way the

sale proceeds represents assessee’s money.

4. Because, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case the authorities

below erred in making and confirming the

addition of Rs.7459 being the estimated

entry charges paid to the broker. The

addition is made and sustained purely on

presumptions and surmises.

5. Because in any view of the matter the

assessment order dt. 23.03.2004 is bad on

fact and in law.

6.Because, on the facts and in circumstances

of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in

placing reliance to various case laws. These

case laws are distinguishable on facts and

circumstances.

7. Because, the learned CIT(A) has not

properly dealt with assessee submission

dated 20.03.2006 filed before him. The

learned CIT(A) did not even address to the

case laws cited which were relevant to the

issue.

8. It was the any view of the matter the

assessment order as well as the appellate

order is bad on facts and in law.

4. ITA No.

182/Agr/2006

A.Y.2002-03

Shri. Rajesh

Kumar Garg, Agra

S/Shri.

1.Hari Om Maratha,

J.M.

2.Sanjay Arora,

A.M.

“1. That under the facts and circumstances

of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(Appeals)

has erred in confirming the assessment of

income by Ld. ACIT at Rs.40,02,142/- as

against the returned income of Rs.6,31,935/-

.

2. That the Ld. Authorities below have

unjustifiably upheld their action in holding

the incomes declared by the appellant in the

relevant assessment year as fictitious and

bogus and treating the incomes declared as

long tem capital gains as not genuine and

authentic and taxed them as other incomes.

3. That the Ld. Lower Authorities failed to

validate that they could not be held justified

, to have proceeded to upheld the additions

by disputing the facts related to declared

incomes in the return of income of the

appellant for the relevant year and ignoring

all the relevant material sufficient enough to

support the declared incomes and to

discharge the burden on the assessee of

proving the authenticity of the same, which

lays upon the assessee.

4. That the appellant grieves that the

additions have been made on conjectures

and mere suspicions and surmises against

the well-accepted practice of natural justice

that suspicions howsoever strong cannot

take place of evidence and adverse inference

cannot be taken against the assessee merely

on the basis of suspicions.

5. That the Ld. Authorities below have

grossly erred in ignoring the adequate and

pertinent documents and other relevant

material submitted to prove the genuineness

of the incomes declared by the appellant at

the time of submission of his return of

income and also during the course of

assessment and/ or appeal proceedings in

Hon’ble

Zonal Vice-

President

Adjourned Sine-die.

support of his declared income.

6. That the Ld. Authorities below are unjust

n making the adverse inference against the

appellant that the inquiries conducted by the

department and the letters and summons sent

u/s 133(6) and u/s 131 during assessment

proceedings to the share broker or the

Company were not attended to or the

persons called or did not appear and hence

the transactions related to incomes declared

by the appellant were not real and true.

7. That in the absence of any evidence, Ld.

Lower authorities have failed to discharge

the onus that the apparent was not real and

the burden rests on them, as a matter of

established law in force, to establish the fact

and basis for their not relying on apparent

and making the additions. In the absence of

positive and cogent material, no adverse

inference could be drawn against the

assessee.

8.That the Ld. Lower Authorities cannot

succeed in making the additions of Rs.

33,70,203/- to the appellant’s income by

basing their decision on un-evidential and

insubstantial information and extraneous

consideration which is vitiated in law.

9.In any case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) in

confirming the order of the Ld. ACIT, has

further erred in including the amount of Rs.

13,00,970 in the total additions where such

income relates t and is part of income of the

assessment year 2001-02 (prior period),

ignoring the fact that Appellant maintains

his books of accounts on mercantile system

basis and declared this amount as the income

in A/Y 2001-02 in his return of income filed

for that year and hence the same has been

wrongly added to the income of the subject

assessment year.

10.That the Ld. Lower Authorities also

overlooked the fact the purchase of the

shares, on sales of which the appellant

declared the incomes from Long Term

Captial Gains, were duly declared by the

assessee as investments in the balance sheet

as at 31.03.2001 and the same remained

undisputed and undoubted till the

completion of the assessment of that year,

out of which some shares were allotted

directly by the companies under the SEBI

guidelines and hence in any case the

transactions of sale of those shares cannot be

held as sham.

11. That in any case and without prejudice the

Ld. Authorities below have erred in placing

reliance on so called purported material and the

so called information received from other

sources related to viz. share broker, companies,

and stock exchange without producing the same

for appellant’s rebuttal and confrontation.

12. That the Ld. Authorities have further erred

in relying on the rumors and information

gathered from unknown sources and biased

assumptions and ignoring and overriding the

evidences brought on record by the appellant in

respect of the share prices of the shares sold by

the appellant during the relevant assessment

year.

13. That the reliance placed by the Ld.

CIT(Appeals) in confirming the additions made

by the Ld. ACIT that a number of persons have

allegedly done bogus transactions so as to hold

the transactions related to incomes declared by

the appellant also as bogus cannot be accepted

on facts and on law. The transactions of any

persons cannot be linked with those of the

appellant and make additions merely on

hypothetical and imaginary basis.

14. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to

figure out that the case laws quoted and ratios

applied by him and Ld. ACIT in their orders on

the basis of which they went ahead in making

and confirming the additions are completely

distinct from the case of the appellant both on

facts and circumstances as the principles

followed in those cases cannot be justifiably

made applicable in the instant case because of

well distinguished position and situation of the

appellant’s case.

15. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred both on

facts and in law in upholding the decision of the

L. ACIT in disallowing the eligible deduction u/s

54EC available to the appellant as the provisions

of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

5. M.A.Nos.20 to

25/Agr/2005

A.Ys.1994-95 to

1999-2000

M/s

S.E.Investments

Ltd., Agra

S/Shri.

1.Hari Om Maratha,

J.M.

2.Sanjay Arora,

A.M.

“Whether common ground No.5 in all these

appeals remained undecided or it stood

decided in substance? If it is found that

ground No. (5) was not decided, can the

Tribunal’s order be recalled to decide the

same. Or else, if it is found that ground

No.5 has been, in fact, decided, the

Tribunal’s order cannot be recalled?”

Hon’ble

Vice-

President

(DZ)

Adjourned Sine-die.

JABALPUR

BENCH

1. ITA No.

327/Jab/2009

A25/10-2004

Shri. Anil Jaiswal,

Jabalpur

S/Shri I.S.Verma,

JM

B.R.Kaushik, A.M.

“Whether on the facts and the circumstances

of the case as well 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?”

Hon’ble

President

----

KOLKATA

BENCHES

1 ITA No.

685/Kol/2008

A.Y.2004-2005

M/s Eureka Stock

& Share Broking

Services Ltd.

S/Shri.

1.N.L.Dash, J.M.

2.B.R.Kaushik,

A.M.

“Whether the view taken by the Hon’ble

A.M. is correct or the view taken by the

Hon’ble J.M. is correct in view of the

decision of the jurisdictional High Court

followed by the CIT(Appeals)?”

Hon’ble

President

Not yet fixed.

2. MA.No.82 & 83/

Kol/2010.

(A/O ITA.Nos.

525 &

526/Kol/2008)

Dr. Minati

Chakraborty

S/Shri

1.B.R.Mittal,J.M. &

2.B.K.Haldar,AM.

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of

the cases, there is a mistake apparent from

record in view of non-consideration of

Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case

of Union of India & Ors Vs. Dharmendra

Textile Processors & ors [306 ITR 377]in

the impugned order of the Tribunal”

Hon’ble

Vice-

President

(KZ)

Send to the Head Office for re-

nomination of Third Member.

PATNA

BENCH (

Circuit Bench,

Ranchi)

1 MA No.

11 (Pat) / 2007

arising out in

IT(SS)A No.

45/Pat/05) A.Y.

86-87 to 97-98

Shri. Ghasi Ram

Agarwal, Ranchi

S/Shri.

1. B. R. Mittal, J.M.

2. B.K. Haldar,

A.M.

“Whether, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the application of

the department for recall of the order of the

Tribunal dt. 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.”

Hon’ble

President

Pending for hearing.

2 Int. Tax Appeal

Nos. 06 to

08/Pat/06

A.Ys.1997-98 to

1999-2000

M/s Coalsesce

Investment (P)

Ltd., Ranchi

S/Shri.

1. B. R. Mittal, J.M.

2. B.K. Haldar,

A.M.

“Whether, in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the assessee was liable under the

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.”

Hon’ble

Zonal Vice-

President

Pending for hearing.

GUWAHATI

BENCHES

1 ITA 47, 48 and

49(Gau)/2004

A.Y.1996-97,

1997-98 &

1998-99

M/s Purbanchal

Safety Glassess

(P) Ltd.,

Guwahati.

S/Shri.

1.Hemant

Sausarkar, J.M.

2.B.R.Kaushik,

A.M.

i). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the

case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the

additions made 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 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

Hon’ble

President.

Not yet fixed.

and documentary evidence to substantiate the

assessments?

ii)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)?

iii)Whether, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the Ld.

Judicial Member was justified in holding

that the issuance of notice u/s 148 cannot

hold good and, therefore, the assessment

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is illegal,

unjustified and void or the Ld.

Accountant Member was justified in

holding that the reopening of assessment

and subsequent assessment made by the

A.O. is justified?

As per the order dt.16.04.2008 of the

Hon’ble President

“All the three questions would be considered

u/s 255(4) by the President.”

2. ITA Nos. 96, 97

& 98(Gau)/2002

A.Y.1990-91,

1991-92, 1992-93

Brooke Bond

India Ltd.,

Calcutta.

S/Shri.

Hemant Sausarkar,

J.M.

B.R.Kaushik, A.M.

I) Whether the learned CIT(A) has erred in

law and in facts in directing the A.O. to

consider the 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)?

II) Whether this Bench of the Tribunal

working under the jurisdiction of the

Hon’ble Gauhati 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

Hon’ble

Vice-

President

(KZ)

Adj Sine die.

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)?

III)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?

IV) 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.

25/Gau/2005

A.Y.1996-97

ITA No.

20/Gau/2005

A.Y.2001-2002

C.O.No.02/Gau/2

005

ITA No.

165/Gau/2004

A.Y.2001-2002

M/s Baid

Commercial

Enterprises Ltd.,

Guwahati.

M/s Shiva Sakti

Floor Mills (P)

Ltd., Tinsukia

M/s Virgo

Cements Ltd.,

Guwahati.

S/Shri.

Hemant Sausarkar,

J.M.

B.R.Kaushik, A.M.

“Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case the transport

subsidy is to be treated as capital in nature in

view of decisions in the following cases-

i) CIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. 215 ITR

847 (Gau)

ii) Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. And

Others Vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC)

iii) DCIT Vs Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003)

263 ITR 357 (Gau)

iv) CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products Ltd.

251 ITR 427(SC) and

v) Sdarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs.CIT

238 ITR 354(Cal).

Hon’ble

Vice-

President(KZ

)

------do-----

------do-----

Adj Sine die

------do-----

------do-----

4. ITA No.

09/Gau/2006

A.Y.2002-2003

Shri. Shyam

Sunder Malpani,

Jorhat

S/Shri.

Hemant Sausarkar,

J.M.

B.R.Kaushik, A.M.

(1) “Whether on the basis of facts and in

the circumstances of the case, the assessee is

entitled to 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

Hon’ble

President

Not yet fixed.

adjudication after ascertaining whether all

the conditions u/s 80 IB are fulfilled?

5. ITA

No.161/Gau/2003

Block period f

1989-90 to 1998-

99 & 1999-2000.

ITA

No.162/Gau/2004

Block period

1989-90 to 1998-

99 & 1999-2000

M/s 3R,

Gauwahati.

M/s Panbazar

Diagnostic Centre,

Guwahati.

S/Shri Hement

Sausarkar, JM.

B.R.Kaushik, AM.

1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of

these cases the block assessments can be

considered invalid?

2. Whether in the facts and 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?

Hon’ble

Vice-

President

(KZ)

Not yet fixed

Not yet fixed

CHENNAI

BENCHES

1. ITA No.

1093/Mds/2010 M/s. Vijaya

Productions Ltd.

S/Shri.

1.U.B.S.Bedi, J.M.

2.A.P.G., A.M.

1.In view of the facts, circumstances and

material on record, whether the addition of

Rs.231,99,11,568 made by the Assessing

Officer and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) as

income from capital gain could be upheld or

deleted.

Hon’ble

President

Case to be posted for hearing

on 07.06.2011

BANGALORE

BENCH

1. ITA No.

1223/Bang/09 M/s Kwality

Biscuits Pvt.Ltd.

S/Shri

1.Dr.O.K.

Narayanan,VP(BZ)

2. George George

K. AM

i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the assessee is entitled to claim the

amount of Rs.30 Crores received from M/s.

Britania Industries Ltd., as non-taxable

capital receipts for the assessment year in

appeal or is it liable for taxation as long-term

capital gains ?

Shri D.

Manmohan

VP(MZ)

Fixed on 25.07.2011

2. MP.No.41/Bang/

2010(ITA

773/B/10)

Shri Mahesh

Kasmukh Boriya,

S/Shri/Smt.

1.P.Madhavi Devi,

JM

2. A.Mohan

Alankamony ,AM.

i)Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, there is any

mistake apparent from record 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

Dr. O. K.

Narayanan,

Vice

President

(BZ)

Blocked for six months

Assessee/AR other than the only argument

to defend his ground on technicality? ii)Whether the inclusion of a copy of a

favourable judgement 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

BENCHES

1. ITA 1204 &

1277/Coch/05

&CO 11 &

12/Coch/2006.

M/s Bhageeratha

Engineering Ltd.

S/Shri

1.N.Vijayakumaran

JM

2.Sanjay Arora,AM

1. Whether the ld. CIT(Appeal) is justified in

allowing the sum of Rs. 1,80.28.280/- being loan

given to its subsidiary company as business

expenditure u/s.37 of the I.T.Act?

2. Whether the Assessing Officer is empowered

to disallow under his powers vested u/s.154 of

the I.T.Act?”

Shri D.

Manmohan,

Vice-

President

(MZ)

Fixed on 05.07.2011

2. IT(SS)A No.

24/Coch/2007

M/s.

Kothamangalam

Aggregates

S/Shri.

1.N.Vijaykumaran,

J.M.

2.Sanjay Arora,

A.M.

1.Whether the decision of the Hon’ble Third

Member is applicable under the given set of facts

and circumstances of the case?

2.Whether the decision of the Hon’ble

Third Member is binding on this Tribunal?

Shri.N.

Bharathavaja

Shankar,Vice

-President

(BZ)

Case to be posted for hearing

on 04.07.2011

AHMEDABAD

BENCHES

1. ITA

No.1444/AHD/08

For A.Y.1993-94

ITA

No.1445/AHD/8

1.M/s Vikram

Plastics

2.M/s Panorama

1. S/Shri Mukul

Shravat, JM

2.A.N.Pahuja,AM

“ Whether, on the facts and circumstances

of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) was

justified in upholding penalty u/s.271(1) (c)

of the I.T.Act, 1961 levied by the Assessing

Officer.”

Hon,ble

Zonal Vice

President

Yet to be fixed

2. ITA No. 4474 &

4475/AHD/2007,

for A.Y. 2002-03

& 2003-04

D/ Kawin

Interactive Pvt.

Ltd.

S/Shri.

1. Mukul Shravat,

J.M.

2.A.N. Pahuja,

A.M.

“Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case. The ld. CIT

(A) was justified in deleting the additions

made by the AO u/s 92C (3) of the Act in

the AYs 2002-03 & 2003-04, without

recording any finding on the Arm’s

Length Price of the international

Hon’ble

Zonal Vice-

President

Yet to be fixed

transactions entered into by the assessee

and ignoring the parameters set out in the

relevant Rules 10B (1) & 10C (2) of the

IT Rules, 1962 as also principles of

natural justice & mandate provisions of

sec. 250 (6) of the act, even when there is

nothing to suggest that the assessee

discharged its onus nor submitted relevant

inputs for determining ALP viz. data of

comparable controlled or uncontrolled

transactions carried in same or similar

circumstances and FAR analysis”

HYDERABAD

BENCHES

1. ITA No.

200/Hyd/2006

A.Y.2001-2002

M/s V.S.T.

Industries Ltd.,

Hyderabad

1. Shri.

N.R.S.Ganeshan,

J.M.

2. Shri. B.K.

Haldar, A.M.

1. Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, interest under sec.

234B and 234C could be levied before

adjusting MAT credit under sec. 115JA of

the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially when

the issue on merits is admittedly covered in

favour of the assessee by the decision of

various Benches of this Tribunal.

2.On the facts and in the circumstances of

the case, when there are conflicting judicial

views expressed by the Bombay High Court

in the case of Haridillia Chemicals LTd.,

221 ITR 194, and the Madras High Court in

the case of Rane Brake India Ltd., T.C.(A)

188/204 dated 15.07.2004, whether we have

to follow the judgment of the Madras High

Court, which is in favour of the assessee, in

view of the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products

Ltd.(1973) 88 ITR 192.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the

case, when the assessee has not raised the

issue of adjustment of MAT credit before

levy of interest under sec. 234B and

sec.234C against the order of

Hon’ble

President

Date of hearing 07.06.2011

assessment, can the same be raised in an

appeal arising out of the consequential order

passed by the A.O. to give effect to the order

of the Tribunal?

CHANDIGARH

BENCH

1. ITA No.

142/CHD/1999

A.Y.97-98

ITA 550, 489,

586, 587 &

588/CHD/99

A.Y.87-88, 90-

91, 98-99, 1999-

2000 & 2000-

2001

ITA No.

143/CHD/1999

A.Y.97-98

ITA Nos. 589,

590 &

591/CHD/2002

A.Y. 1998-99,

1999-2000,

2000-2001

ITA

503/CHD/2002

A.Y. 1997-98

Shri . R.K.Garg

Smt. Sunena Garg

Shri . R.K.Garg,

& Sons(HUF)

S/Shri .

1.M.A.Bakshi, Vice

President

2. N.K.Saini. A.M.

Per J.M. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the

circumstances of this case, the guarantee

commission received by the assessees is a

revenue receipt or a capital receipt?

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 in the case of

CIT v. Pondicherry Industrial Promotion

Development & Investament Corporation

Ltd. (supra), and the decision of Delhi High

Court in the case of Suessen Textile

Bearings Ltd. etc. v. Union of India etc.

(supra)?

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

Hon’ble Vice

President

(Chandigarh)

To be fixed.

the assessees against their personal assets

was a capital receipt?

2. Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case and also in law,

the Ld. CIT(A) should have provided and

opportunity of being heard to the Assessing

Officer when there was a specific direction

by the Tribunal to do so, before arriving at a

conclusion on the basis of judgment of

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of

Suessen Textile bearing Ltd. and others V

Union of India, CC2 JJX 0082 and Hon’ble

Madras High Court in the case of CIT V.

Pondicherry Indl Promotion Development

and Investment Corp. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR

859, that the amount received by assessees

was a capital receipt.

AMRITSAR

BENCH

1. ITA.No.378/ASR

/2009

M/s Ramanujam

Spiritual Public

Charitable trust.

1.S/Shri H.S.

Sidhu,JM

2. Mehar Singh,

AM.

Sh.H.S.Sidhu,JM 1. Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case and the record

available, the assessee is entitled for grant of

approval of renewal of exemption under

section 80G(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961?

2. Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the CIT can

overlook the binding precedent of the order

dated 19.12.2008 passed by the ITAT,

Amritsar Bench in assessee’s own case in

ITA No.512(ASR)/2008 in para Nos.9 and

10, page No.5, holding that the learned CIT

erroneously rejected the said corrigendum as

a mere after thought and not having any

binding force and in the absence of any

provision of law prohibiting the assessee

from amending the original Trust Deed by

way of corrigendum?

3. “Whether on the facts and in the

Zonal Vice

President

Pending for fixation

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT

can refuse the approval of renewal of

exemption under section 80G(5) of the

Income tax Act, 1961 on the ground that one

of the objects No.4 that the assessee-trust

has been established for a particular

religious purpose for the followers of the

diety, who have to be only Hindus, inspite of

the fact that he has already granted the

approval of renewal of exemption in many

times under section 80G(5) of the Income

tax Act, 1961?”

Sh. Mehar Singh, AM. 1. “ Whether, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the settlers or the

trustees are competent to effect valid

amendment or deletion or addition to the

object clause, contained in the original

trust-deed, when there is no such power

provided under the originally constituted

trust and what are the legal consequesnces

of such amendment?’ 2. “Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the assesse-trust is

entitled for approval, in terms of original Trust

Deed and the amended one, under section

80G(5) of the Act, without compliance with the

statutory conditions precedent of section

80G(5)(iii) read with explanation 3 to section

80G(5C) of the Act?”

2. IT(SS)A No.

14/ASR/2005.

IT(SS)A

No.13/ASR/2005.

IT(SS)A

No.12/ASR/2005

Sh.Vinod Goel

M/s Sidhant

Deposits &

Advances(P) Ltd.

M/s Trimurti

Deposits &

Advances (P) Ltd.

1. S/Shri H.S.

Sid hu, JM

2. Mehar Singh,

AM.

Shri H.S.Sidhu.

1. Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of present case, the issues

in the present appeals are covered by the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Manish Maheshwary Vs.

ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (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

Zonal Vice

President

Pending for fixation

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

inspite 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 isuance 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 stisfaction u/s 158BD,

in a case where such satisfaction is

duly evidenced by documents

available in the paper book filed by

the Deptt. and reporduced 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?”

JODHPUR

BENCH

1. ITA

No.362(JU)/10

Smt. Supriya

Kanwar, Jodhpur.

1.S/Shri Joginder

Singh,JM.

2. K.G. Bansal,AM.

“Whether on the facts and in circumstances

of the case and in law, the transactions of

purchase and sale of five pieces of

agricultural land with standing from any

municipal council, amount to transactions on

capital account or adventure in the nature of

trade?

Vice-

President

(chandigarh)

Pending for fixation

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.06.2011.

Sr.

No

Appeal No. Name of the Assessee Bench Points involved To Whom

assigned

Remarks

MUMBAI

BENCHES

1. ITA No.

2242/M/2010

Narang International

Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

S/Shri.

1.N.V.Vasudevan,J.M.

2.T.R.Sood,A.M.

“Whether on the facts circumstances of the

case, the penalty u/s 271 (1) ( C ) was

leviable?”

Shri.

R.S.Syal,A.M.

Heard on

23.03.2011

2. ITA

No.635/M/2010 M/s N.G.C.. Network

(I) Pvt.Ltd,Mumbai.

1. S/Shri

P.M.Jagtap,AM.

2. Vijay Pal

Rao,JM.

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the

disallowance of Rs.4,14,20,843/- made by the

A.O. out of Advertisement and Publicity

expenses incurred by the assessee.”

Hon’ble Vice-

President(MZ)

Heard on

01/06/2011

PUNE BENCHES

1.

ITA No.

723/PN/2007

M/s. Marigold

Premises

S/Shri. Mukul Shrawat,

JM & D. K. Rao, AM

1.Whether, under the facts and circumstances

of the case, the assessee has fulfilled all the

conditions as laid down u/s. 80-IA(4)(iii) of

Income-Tax Act read with Rule 18C of Income

Tax Rules 1962 for entitlement of the

deduction prescribed in section 80IA(2) of the

Income-tax Act, 1961?

2.Whether under the facts and circumstances of

the case, the assessee had complied with the

conditions prescribed in (i) Industrial Park

Scheme 2002, (ii) Notification dtd. 17.02.2003

of Government of India, Ministry of

Commerce anad Industries, and

(iii)Notification dated 03.07.2007 of CBDT,

for the purposes of the entitlement of the

deduction as prescribed u/s. 80-IA of the IT

Act, 1961 ?

Hon’ble Vice-

President, (MZ)

Heard on

11.03.2011

2. ITA No.

119/PN/96

A.Y.1992-93

Sandvik Asia Ltd. S/Shri.

1.Dinesh K. Agarwal,

J.M. &

2.Narendra S. Saini,

A.M.

Per J.M. :-“Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee is

entitled to deduction in respect of the amount of

interest Rs. 1,37,225/- paid to the Income-tax

department against the interest received on income-

tax refunds while computing its income.”

Per A.M. :-“Whether on the facts and

circumstances of the case the interest income

includible in the total income of the assessee

should be net interest received from the Income-

tax Department i.e. Rs.44,53,655/- or the gross

interest received i.e. is Rs.45,90,876/-?

Hon’ble

President

Heard on

31/03/2011

DELHI

BENCHES

1. ITA No.

1364/Del/09

Group 4 Flack, New

Delhi

S/Shri. R. P. Tolani, JM

& K. G. Bansal, AM

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

of the case, the assessee’s disclosure,

explanation, PE issue ascertainment and its

attribution of profits, were arguable

propositions and facts of the case do not

deserve to be visited with penalty U/s. 271(1)©

as held by learned JM; or it is a fit case for levy

of penalty to the extent of Rs. 3,91,637/- for

lack of bonafide explanation, being 50% of the

amount of penalty levied by AO as held by

learned AM?

Hon’ble Vice

President (DZ)

Heard on

29.10.2010

KOLKATA

BENCHES

1 ITA No.876/Kol/08

A.Y.2004-05

IT(SS)A

No.90/Kol/2008

A.Y.2005-06

IT(SS)A

No.89/Kol/2008

A.Y.2004-05

Sushma Devi Agarwal

Sushma Devi Agarwal.

Monika Devi Agarwal.

S/Shri

1.Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.

2. C.D.Rao, A.M.

“ Whether, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the above cases/appeals, the

learned CIT(A) was justified in canceling the

penalties u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,

1961?

Hon’ble Zonal

Vice-President

Heard on

24.05.2011

2. ITA No.

566/Kol/2009

& C.O.39/Kol/2009

M/s. Philips Carbon

Black Ltd.

S/Shri.

1.B.R.Mittal, J.M.

2.C.D. Rao, A.M.

“Whether, in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the disallowance of Rs.2 Lakhs on ad-

hoc basis proposed by Ld. J.M. or disallowance

of expenses to 1% of the total exempted

income proposed by the Ld. A.M. is justified

under section 14 A of the I.T.Act, 1961.”

Heard on

24.05.2011

3. ITA No.

1747/Kol/2010

Kaushendra Pratap

Singh

S/Shri.

1.B.R.Mittal, J.M.

2.B.K.Haldar,A.M.

“Whether, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the proposed order

of ld .J.M. is justified or action suggested by

the ld. A.M. is justified?”

Hon’ble Vice-

President (KZ)

Heard on

23.05.2011

CHENNAI

BENCHES

1. ITA No.

259 to

263/Mds/2010

M/s. Sanghvi and

Doshi Enterprise,Sri

Mahalakshmi Housing

& Shri Mahalakshmi

Builders.

S/Shri.

1. Pradeep Parikh, Vice-

President

2. George Mathan J.M.

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, is

the assessee entitled to deduction under sec

801B(10)

of the income Tax Act 1961, if there is

violation even in respect of a single residential

unit in the project?

Dr. O. K.

Narayanan,

Vice-President

(Bangalore

Zone)

Heard on

02.05.2011

2. ITA No.

1195/Mds/2010

M/s. West Asia

Maritime Ltd.

S/Shri.

1.U.B.S.Bedi,J.M.

2.A.P.G.,A.M.

“Whether, in view of facts and circumstances

of the case, ship named ‘M.V.Gem of Ennore’

transporting thermal coal from one location to

another location within the country, when such

ports are connected by rail/road, can be

excluded as ‘qualifying ship’ in terms of the

exclusion clause 9i) of section 115VD for the

benefit of Tonnage Tax Scheme OR it can be

treated as ‘qualifying ship’.

Dr.O.K.

Narayanan,

Vice-

President

(Chennai

Zone)

Heard on

01.06.2011

HYDERABAD

BENCHES

1.

ITA

301/Hyd/2002

A.Y.1998-99

Venkateshwara

Hatcheries Ltd.,

Hyderabad

1.Shri. D.Manmohan,

J.M.

2.Shri. B.K.Haldar,

A.M.

1. Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the expenditure

incurred on repairs of Dargah is allowable as

deduction u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.”

Hon’ble

President

Heard on

06.06.2011

2. M.P. No.

74/Hyd/2005 (In

ITA 679/Hyd/01)

for A.Y.1996-97

Shri. R.Devilal Sharma,

R.R.Dist.

1.Shri. D.Manmohan,

J.M.

B.K.Haldar,

A.M.

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the

case the impugned interest expenditure is

allowable as deduction either u/s 36(1)(iii) or

u/s 37(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961?”

Hon’ble

President

Heard on

06.06.2011