{"id":4515,"date":"2015-07-01T15:00:48","date_gmt":"2015-07-01T09:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/?page_id=4515"},"modified":"2015-07-01T15:00:48","modified_gmt":"2015-07-01T09:30:48","slug":"statement-of-special-bench-cases-pending-as-on-22-06-2015","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/statement-of-special-bench-cases-pending-as-on-22-06-2015\/","title":{"rendered":"STATEMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH CASES PENDING AS ON 22.06.2015"},"content":{"rendered":"

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF SPECIAL BENCH CASES PENDING AS ON 22.06.2015<\/u><\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Sr. No<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Appeal No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Name of the Assessee<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Points involved<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Remark<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MUMBAI BENCHES<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

1.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA No. 5568 & 5569\/M\/1995 & 6448\/M\/1994
\n A.Y. 1991-92 to 1993-94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

DHL Operations B.V. Netherlands<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether, or not, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Art. 5.5 and Art. 5.6 of the DTA (with Netherlands) and having regard to its activities, it can be said that Airfreight Ltd. was the agent of the assessee so that it can be held that the assessee had a PE in India?  And if the answer is in the affirmative, whether or not the income from inbound shipments can be treated as attributable to the PE?”<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 Fixed on 27.07.2015<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

2.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA 5996\/M\/93
\n ITA 1055\/M\/94
\n ITA 1056\/M\/94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

GTC Industries Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Fixed on
\n 13.07.2015<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

DELHI<\/strong> BENCHES<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA No. 1976\/Del\/2006<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M\/s C.L.C. & Sons Pvt. Ltd. <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the value of all intangible assets falling in the category of “any other business or commercial rights”, without coherence of such rights with the distinct genusis\/ category if intangible assets like know how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences and franchises as defined U\/s 32(1) (II) of the I.T. Act.” <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Fixed after the disposal of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CLC Global Ltd. which is pending before Hon’ble High
\n Court. <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA No. 1999 & 2000\/Del\/2008<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M\/s National Agricultural Co-op. Mkt. Federation of India, New Delhi.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, where claim of damages and interest thereon is deputed by the assessee in the court of law, deduction can be allowed for the interest claimed on such damages while computing business income.”<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Adjourned Sine-die <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA No. 163\/ASR\/2003
\n A.Y.1998-99<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Shri Tejinder singh (HUF)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, consideration claimed to have been received on account of sale of jewellery etc. relating to the disclosures made under VDI Scheme, 1997, can be considered to be the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under any of the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961?”<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Block for 6th Months<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITANo. 3827\/Del\/2009
\n A. Y. 2006-07<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M\/s. Suraj Overseas (Pvt) Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in Law in holding that profit aggregating to Rs. 2,51,50,313\/- earned by the appellant from sale of shares and securities held under discretionary assessable under the head “business income” as opposed to capital gains returned by the appellant ?”<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Fixed on 06.07.2015.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

KOLKATTA <\/strong>
\n BENCHES<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA Nos.1548 & 1549\/Kol\/2009
\n A.Y.2003-04 & 2004-05<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M\/s. Instrumentarium  Corporation Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no arm’s length rate of interest was required to be charged on the loan granted by the non-resident assessee-company to its wholly owned subsidiary Indian company M\/s Datex Ohmeda(Indian) Pvt. Ltd.(Datex)?”<\/p>\n

2. “Whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2001 [252 ITR (St.) 104] and Taxation Ruling TR 2007\/1 issued by Australian Taxation Office are relevant in the context of Transfer Pricing Regulations of India, in particular to the case of the assessee?
\n 3. “Whether, setting off of loss with future profits and not assessing the interest income in the hands of the assessee on arm’s length price will cause real loss to the Govt. exchequer?”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Adjourned Sine-die.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

CHENNAI<\/u><\/strong> BENCHES<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Int. T.A. 101 & 161\/Mds\/2003
\n A.Y. 1999-2000
\n A.Y.2000-2001<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M\/s Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., Chennai<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether, the amount collected from the borrowers to meet the interest tax liability could be taxed as interest under the Interest-Tax Act, 1974?”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Adjourned Sine die<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA No. 2055 & 2056\/Chen\/2014.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Virudhnagar Dist. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether a Co-operative society carrying on banking business with approval of the reserve bank of India, is liable to deduct tax under section 194A on interest paid to is members?” <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Fixed on 17.07.2015.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

AHMEDABAD  BENCHES<\/u><\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA 1952\/AHD\/2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Shri Himanshu V. Shah, Ahmedabad.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether deduction u\/s 80-IA (4)(ii), which is available to BASIC Telecom Services Providers is also available to Franchisee of such Basic Service Providers also, which is only putting EPEX system with out creating infrastructure in the field of Telecom?”<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Adjourned Sine die<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA Nos.2668,2669 & 2670\/Ahd\/2012 & C.O.Nos.10, 11, 12\/Ahd\/2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The People’s Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Deesa.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.“Whether the assessee being a Co-operative Credit Society, in view of its function in providing credit facilities to its members, is into the business of banking and is it not being impeded or hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of I.T. Act, 1961? Further, in view of section 5 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and section 2 of NABARD Act, 1981, whether this Co-operative Credit Society is carrying on the Banking Bank?” Business, and for all practical purposed acting like a Co-operative
\n 2. “Whether a Co-operative Credit Society being providing credit facility to its members can be held as banking function, so as to deny the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) by invoking the provisions of section 80P(4)?” <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Adjourned Sine die<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA No. 498\/AHD\/2011<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Claris life Science Ltd. <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Whether an assessee is liable to Penalty u\/s. 221(1) of the Act. In a case where though the Assessee has not paid the  self assessment u\/s. 140A while filing the return of Income but revises the income by filling revied return of income and pays the tax on the revised income at the time of filing of the revised return of income?” <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

HYDERABAD<\/strong> BENCHES<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA No. 18\/H\/2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M\/s Jagathi Publication Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

To hear & decide entire appeal<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Adjourned Sine die<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA no. 417 to 419\/hyd\/2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M\/s. Matrusri education society Hyderabad.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether collection of capitation fees\/donation or any money by whatever name it is called i.e. donation, building fund. Auditorium fund etc. etc, over and above the prescribed fee for admission of students y the society which was accounted for and untilised for the propose of object of the society dis-entitles it from claming exemption u\/s 11 or u\/s 10(23C) (Vi) of the IT Act.?”<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Fixed on 10\/07\/2015. as part-heard <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA 1845\/hyd\/2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M\/s. Progressive Construction Ltd. Hyderabad <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on construction of road on BOT basis is capital or Revenue? If it is capital expenditure, whether the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to building or to an intangible asset as per S.32(1)(ii) ? And, if not whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession.? <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Fixed on 02.07.2015.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

LIST OF SPECIAL BENCH CASES HEARD AND PENDING FOR ORDERS AS ON 22.06.2015.<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

DELHI<\/strong> BENCHES <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ITA 502\/Del\/2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Vireet Inv.(P) Ltd. Delhi <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

“Whether the expenditure incurred to earn exempt income computed u\/s. 14A could not be added while computing book profit u\/s 115 JB of the ACT.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Heard on 04.06.2015<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

\n

Disclaimer-<\/strong> This list has been made on the basis of information gathered from informal and formal sources and is neither sanctioned nor authorized by the ITAT. All care and diligence has been exercised in preparing this list any mistakes and omissions herein cannot be ruled out. Any mistake, error or discrepancy discovered may be brought to the notice of the administrator at itatonline.manager@gmail.com. Neither the publishers nor itatonline.org accept any liability for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of inaccurate or incomplete information in this list. It is requested that to avoid any doubt the reader should cross check all the contents of this list with the ITAT. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF SPECIAL BENCH CASES PENDING AS ON 22.06.2015. Sr. No Appeal No. Name of the Assessee Points involved Remark   MUMBAI BENCHES       1. ITA No. 5568 & 5569\/M\/1995 & …<\/p>\n

STATEMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH CASES PENDING AS ON 22.06.2015<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4515","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4515","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4515"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4515\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/info\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}