INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES ... - ITAT

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES PENDING AS ON 06.02.2013
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
Hon’ble Zonal
Vice-President
Adjourned Sine
die
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
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”
Zonal Vice-
President(MZ)
Fixed on
14.03.2013
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
& 5303/M/2004
A.Y. 1996-97
M/s. Standard
Chartered Bank
S/Shri.
1.R.S.Padvekar,J.
M.
2.Rajendra
Singh,A.M.
“Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case
interest income of
Rs.73,92,16,611/-
(Rs.39,23,71,781+Rs.34,68,44,
830) is asseable to tax in the
year under consideration”
Shri.
R.S.Syal,A.M.
After the
Disposal of MA
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”
Zonal Vice-
President(MZ)
Ajd. Sine-die
2

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.”
3

LUCKNOW
BENCHES
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
S/Shri
1. I.S.Verma,J.M.
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 CIT(A)”
Hon’ble Zonal
Vice-President
(As per order
dt.20.09.2011 of
the Hon’ble
President) Shri
H.L.Karwa as
Zonal Vice-
President to hear
as a Third
Member.”
Adjourned Sine
die
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
4

2. ITA No.
219/LKW/2009 and
C.O.No.23/Lck/
2009 A.Y.2005-06
3. SPNo.03/Lkw/2012
(A/o ITA
188/Lkw/2010)
A.Y. 2007-08
SP.No.04/Lkw/201
2
(A/o ITA
103/Lkw/2012)
A.Y. 2007-08
M/s Zazsons
Exports Ltd.
Kanpur
Smt.Uma Pandey,
M/s.State Urban
Development
Agency.
S/Shri.
1. I.S.Verma, J.M.
2.N.K.Saini, A.M.
S/Shri.
Sunil Kumar
Yadav,J.M.
2.B.R.Jain,A.M.
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”
“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”
SP No.03/Lkw/2012
“Whether, the stay earlier
granted by the Tribunal can be
extended till disposal of the
appeal in a case where the
appeal has been heard by the
Tribunal and is pending 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
outstanding demand can be
stayed outrightly or subject to
Zonal Vice-
President
Hon’ble
President,I.T.A.T.
Adjourned Sine
die
Hearing is
awaited.
5

4. ITA No.
188/Lkw/2010
A.Y. 2007-08
Smt. Uma Pandey S/Shri.
1.Sunil Kumra
Yadav,J.M.
2.B.R.Jain,A.M.
payment of part of demand in
instalments as proposed”
Sd/- Sd/-
J.M. A.M
“Whether, under the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
payments received by the
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 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
Shri.G.D.Agarwal
, Hon’ble Vice-
President (LZ)
Hearing is
awaited.
6

JABALPUR
BENCH
1. ITA No.
327/Jab/2009
A25/10-2004
KOLKATA
BENCH
ITA Nos.
65/Kol/2010, &
655/Kol/2011.
A.Y.2006-07 2007-
08
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. Anil
Jaiswal, Jabalpur
M/s Shyam Steel
Industries Ltd.,
Kolkata.
Shri. Ghasi Ram
Agarwal, Ranchi
S/Shri
1.I.S.Verma, J.M.
2.B.R.Kaushik,
A.M.
S/Shri
1.George Mathan,
J.M.
2.C.D.Rao,A.M.
S/Shri.
1. B. R. Mittal,
J.M.
2. B.K. Haldar,
A.M.
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
“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”
“Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case the
power subsidy received by the
assessee is capital in nature or
revenue in nature ”
“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. 21 st
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,
I.T.A.T.
Hon’ble Vice-
President
Chennai/Kolkata
Zone.
Hon’ble Zonal
Vice President
(KZ)
----
Not yet fixed
Pending for
hearing.
7

2 Int. Tax Appeal
Nos. 06 to
08/Pat/06
A.Ys.1997-98 to
1999-2000
GUWAHATI
BENCHES
1 ITA 47, 48 and
49(Gau)/2004
A.Y.1996-97, 1997-
98 &
1998-99
M/s Coalsesce
Investment (P)
Ltd., Ranchi
M/s Purbanchal
Safety Glassess
(P) Ltd.,
Guwahati.
S/Shri.
1. B. R. Mittal,
J.M.
2. B.K. Haldar,
A.M.
S/Shri.
1.Hemant
Sausarkar, J.M.
2.B.R.Kaushik,
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.”
1. “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 and documentary
evidence to substantiate the
assessments”
Hon’ble Zonal
Vice-President
Hon’ble
President,
I.T.A.T.
Pending for
hearing.
Not yet fixed.
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
8

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)”
2. ITA Nos. 96, 97 &
98(Gau)/2002
A.Y.1990-91, 1991-
92, 1992-93
Brooke Bond
India Ltd.,
Calcutta.
S/Shri.
1.Hemant
Sausarkar, J.M.
2.B.R.Kaushik,
A.M.
3. “Whether, on the facts and
in the circumstances of the
case, the Ld. Judicial Member
was justified in holding that
the issuance of notice u/s 148
cannot hold good and,
therefore, the assessment u/s
143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is
illegal, unjustified and void or
the Ld. Accountant Member
was justified in holding that
the reopening of assessment
and subsequent assessment
made by the A.O. is
justified”
As per the order
dt.16.04.2008 of the Hon’ble
President
“All the three questions would
be considered u/s 255(4) by the
President.”
1.” 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.
Shri.Pramod
Kumar,A.M.
Adjourned Sine
-die
9

(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)”
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”
10

3. 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
adjudication after ascertaining
whether all the conditions u/s
80 IB are fulfilled”
Hon’ble
President,
I.T.A.T.
Not yet fixed.
4. ITA 161/Gau/2003
Block period f
1989-90 to 1998-99
& 1999-2000.
ITA 162/Gau/2004
Block period 1989-
90 to 1998-99 &
1999-2000
M/s 3R,
Gauwahati.
M/s Panbazar
Diagnostic
Centre, Guwahati.
S/Shri
1. Hement
Sausarkar, J.M.
2. B.R.Kaushik,
A.M.
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”
Shri.
D.K.Tyagi,J.M.
------ do -------
Not yet fixed
CHENNAI
BENCH
1. 67/Mds/2012 Shri C.
Srikanth,Chennai.
& M/s Atlus
Securities
Trading (P) Ltd.
S/Shri
1.N.S.Saini,A.M.
2.V.Durga Rao,
J.M.
“Whether keeping in view the
findings of the CIT(A), there
was any mistake apparent from
the records rectifiable u/s
254(2) of the Act in the order
dated 10.2.2012 passed by the
Tribunal wherein the Tribunal
proceeded on the assumption
that the facts of the case as
brought out by the Assessing
Dr. O. K.
Narayanan, Vice
President, (CZ).
Fixed on
18/02/2013
11

BANGALORE
BENCH
1. MP.No
41/Bang/2010
(ITA 773/B/10)
Shri Mahesh
Hasmukh Boriya,
S/Shri/Smt.
1.P.Madhavi Devi,
J.M.
2. A.Mohan
Alankamony A.M.
Officer in the assessment order
were undisputed facts of the case
Sd/-
A.M.
“Whether, on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case,
the Miscellaneous Applications filed
by the assesses do come within the
purview of Section 254(2) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 or not”
Sd/-
J.M.
1.”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 Assessee/AR other than
the only argument to defend his
ground on technicality”
Hon’ble Vice-
President (BZ)
Fixed on
15/03/2013
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
12

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. Sunaina
Garg
Shri . R.K.Garg,
& Sons(HUF)
S/Shri .
1.M.A.Bakshi, VP
2. N.K.Saini. A.M.
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”
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 &
Investment 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)”
Hon’ble Vice
President
(Chandigarh)
Adjourned
sine-dia
3. “Whether, on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case,
the additional ground raised by
the revenue for the assessment
13

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
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
14

eceived by assessees
was a capital receipt.”
AMRITSAR
BENCH
1. 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.
S/Shri
1. H.S. Sidhu,
J.M.
2.Mehar
Singh,A.M.
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
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.
Zonal Vice
President(CZ)
Pending for
fixation
15

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 nonproduction
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”
16

JAIPUR BENCH
1. ITA No.
937/Jp/2011
M/s. Mahaveer
Exports, Jaipur.
S/Shri
1.R.K.Gupta, JM.
2.Sanjay
Arora,A.M.
Shri R.K. Gupta, JM.
1. “Whether, in the facts and
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.
Hon’ble Vice
President
(Chandigarh
Zone)
Pending
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
17

elevant 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
18

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 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 &
326/Jp/2011
A.Y.2008-09.
ITA
No.1123/Jp/2011
A.Y.2009-10.
M/s Escorts Heart
Institute &
Research
Centre,Jaipur.
Escort Heart
Super Speciality
Hospital
Ltd.,Jaipur.
S/Shri
1. R.K.Gupta,
JM.
2. SanjayArora,
AM.
Shri R.K.Gupta,J.M.
1. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
provisions of section 194J are
applicable on the payments
made to blood bank ”
2. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
provisions of section 192 or
Hon’ble Vice
President (Delhi
Zone)
Pending
19

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 assesseehospital
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
20

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
3. ITA No.
110/JP/2012
Smt. Asha
Mandowra,Jaipur.
S/Shri
1.R.K.Gupra,
JM.
2.Sanjai Arora,
AM.
Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the present
case, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is
liable to be confirmed or liable
to be restored to his file to pass
a fresh order
Shri
G.D.Agarwal,
Vice-
President(DZ)
Pending
21

4. MA. No.
11/JP/2011
(A.O.of ITA No.
13/JP/10)
Shri Deepak
Delela,Jaipur.
S/Shri
1.R.K.Gupta,
JM.
2.Sanjai Arora,
AM.
Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the present
case, the order of Tribunal in
Misc.
Application
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.
Shri
G.D.Agarwal,
Vice-
President(DZ)
Pending
JODHPUR
BENCH
1. ITA No.362(JU)/10 Smt. Supriya
Kanwar, Jodhpur.
S/Shri
1. JoginderSingh,
J.M.
2. K.G.Bansal,
A.M.
“Whether, on the facts and
circumstances of the case,
solitary 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.
Hon’ble Vice-
President
(Mumbai Zone)
Adjourned
sine-dia
22

RAJKOT BENCH
1. ITA
No.921/Rjt/2010
2. ITA No.
342/Rjt/2012
Atul Auto
Ltd.Rajkot.
Shri Shirish M.
Ravani,
Jamnagar.
S/Shri
1.T.K.Sharma,
J.M.
2.D.K.Srivastava,
A.M.
S/Shri
1.T.K.Sharma, JM.
2.D.K.Srivastava,
AM.
“Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
ld.CIT(A) is justified in directing
the AO to grant the 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)
Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the ld.
CIT(A) is justified in deleting the
diaallowance of interest of Rs.
3,22,091/- which was paid on
loans taken from family members
u/s 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act,
1961”
Hon’ble Vice
President,
(Ahmedabad
Zone)
Hon’ble Vice
President,
(Ahmedabad
Zone)
3. MA. Nos. 61 to
66/Rjt/2010(A.O. of
ITA Nos. 637 to
639 & 707 to
709/Rjt/2010)
Shambhubhai
Mahadev Ahir,
Gandhidham.
S/Shri
1.T.K.Sharma, JM.
2.D.K.Srivastava,
AM.
“Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case, all the
six Miscellaneous Appelications
filed by the Revenue should be
dismissed or be allowed”
Hon’ble Vice
President,
(Ahmedabad
Zone)
23

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
LIST OF THIRD MEMBER CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 06.02.2013.
Sr.
No
Appeal No.
GUWAHATI BENCH
Name of the
Assessee
Bench Points involved To Whom
assigned
Remarks
1.
2.
3.
ITA No. 25/Gau/2005
A.Y.1996-97
ITA No. 20/Gau/2005
A.Y.2001-2002
C.O.No.02/Gau/2005
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.,
Gauwahati.
S/Shri.
1.Hemant Sausarkar,
J.M.
2.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).
Shri.Pramod
Kumar,A.M.
Heard on
04.04.2012
Heard on
04.04.2012
Heard on
03.04.2012
KOLKATA BENCH
1. ITA 2004/Kol/09,
1668, 1669/Kol/2011
M/s. UAL
Industries Ltd.,
Kolkata
S/Shri
1.Pramod Kumar, A.M.
2.George Mathan, J.M.
Whether or not in the facts and
circumstances of the case ‘Fly Ash Handling
System’ is eligible to be treated as ‘Air
Pollution Control Equipment’ for the purpose
of granting depreciation at 100%”
Dr.
O.K.Narayanm
Zonal Vice
President
Heard on
17.12.2012
24

COCHIN BENCH
1. ITA 720/Coch/2010
A.Y.2005-06 &
ITA 721/Coch/2010
A.Y.2006-07
Al-Ameen
Educational Trust
S/Shri.
1.N.Vijaykumaran,
J.M.
2.Sanjay Arora,A.M.
“Whether levy of penalty under section
271D is justified”
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
Hon’ble Vice
President(BZ).
Heard on
14.12.2012
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
A.Y.2004-05
M/s. Shaw
Wallace Financial
Services Ltd.
S/Shri.
1.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. 2004-05 can be
said to have been made on a non existent
company and if so, whether the same can be
quashed”
Hon’ble Vice-
President, (MZ)
Heard on
08.01.2013
25

AGRA BENCH
1. ITA No.
92/Agr/2008 &
93/Agr/2008
A.Y.1998-99
J.M.Agarwal
Tabacco Co. &
J.M.Agarwal
Tabacco Co. (P)
Ltd.
S/Shri.
1.Hari Om Maratha,
J.M.
2. Sanjay Arora,A.M.
1. “Whether, in the given facts and
circumstances of the case when disturbed.
The AO has not the Trading results 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”
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”
Shri.G.D.Agarw
al, Hon’ble
Vice-President
(DZ)
Heard on
14/01/2013.
26