Delhi Court June 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Deputy Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD307(Delhi)
1. These cross appeals by the parties and the cross objection by the assessee arise out of the levy of interest under Section 7D of the Companies' Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964 ('the Act') for the assessment year 1983-84.2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned Advocates for the assessee. We are sorry to remark that we received no worthwhile assistance from either side. While the learned Departmental Representative merely stated that he relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, the learned Advocates for the assessee were ready to concede that the appeals and the cross objection filed by the assessee were without any force.3. In the present case the assessee did not file a statement of advance tax as required by Section 7A(5) of the Act. On 6-12-1982 it, however, filed a statement of advance surtax estimating its liability at Rs. 9,77,100 which amount was paid before 15-12-1982. The Assessing Officer thought that in this manner the assessee reduced its ...
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1992
Reported in: (1993)47TTJ(Del)340
ORDERCH. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, PRESIDENT :The assessed in these three appeals is M/s. Escorts Ltd., New Delhi. For the purpose of erection and commission of Heavy Vertical Digit race Die/Sinking/Copy Milling Machine, it applied to and obtained the approval of the Government of India to the payment of 8500 U. S. Dollars to M/s. Rambaudi Industrial, Italy as charges for the erecting of the above machine. The Italian Company has to depute two technicians for the purpose of erection for a period of 7 days and the above amount was the fees fixed. The assessed-company will have to bear the expenses on account of to and fro air fare, accommodation, local transport in India in Indian rupees. The assessed-company is also to bear all the applicable taxes in India on the above payment. This was the permission conveyed to the assessed by the Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Development, Government of India by its letter dt. 23rd Sept., 1987. It also obtained the approval of the Reserve...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Satti S. Vachani
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD275(Delhi)
1. These are three appeals by the revenue pertaining to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1982-83 in the case of two assessees belonging to one group. Since issues involved in all these appeals are common, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being disposed of by a single order.2. Smt. Satti S. Vachani was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,150 on or before 15-3-1979 under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme, 1974 on the basis of estimate filed by the assessee where under the income was estimated at Rs. 1,47,000. The assessee however, deposited this amount within the previous year ending on 31-3-1979. For assessment year 1982-83 the assessee was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 37,209 on or before 15-3-1982 under the CDS. 1974 on the estimated income of Rs. 2,37,222. However, the assessee deposited an amount of Rs. 31,650 on 31-3-1982. Therefore, there was a short-fall of Rs. 5,559 in the deposit under the CDS. This payment was late by 15 days.3. In the case of Smt. Kal...
income-tax Officer Vs. Pitamber Industries (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD373(Delhi)
1. There is an appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 1983-84.2. The grievance of the revenue is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 7,39,200 on account of unexplained investment in the construction of the factory building to Rs. 50,000 under Section 69 whereas the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,000 as unexplained investment. The facts of the case are that the assessee-company constructed a factory building at 4, Rajasthani Udyog Industrial Estate, New Delhi. The construction of the building started on 16-6-1980 and completed on 19-7-1982. As per audited balance-sheet filed with the return of the assessee, the assessee disclosed total cost of construction at Rs. 5,12,453. The Approved Valuer of the assessee Shri A.P. Saxena estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 5,1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›