Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments

Satish Kumar Sood (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming a penalty of Rs. 7,869 imposed on the assessee by the ITO under s. 271(1)(c).2. I have heard both the parties and have also perused the orders passed by the tax authorities. It is accepted between the parties that the penalty proceedings were initiated and the penalty levied in respect of a sum of Rs. 15,000 purported to have been received as a loan from one Shri Adarsh Arora, but which the assessee was not able to substantiate in the course of the assessment proceedings. The addition ultimately came to be confirmed by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings and a copy of the order of the Tribunal has been placed on record.3. Adverting to the assessment order it is seen that the assessee derives income from interest in respect of advances made to various members of the family as also on deposits with the companies, firms, etc. For advancing the aforesaid loans the assessee has borrowed funds fro...

Express Movers (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)61ITD528(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order passed by the Dy. CIT Special Range-26, New Delhi under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, for the block period 1986-87 to 1995-96 plus the current period 1st April, 1995, to 15th September, 1995, upto the date of search. "1. That the authorities below were not justified to pass the order under s. 158BC of the IT Act without compliance of provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act and the assessment framed is illegal and deserves to be quashed. That the learned CIT has granted the approval under s. 158BC of the IT Act in a mechanical manner and without application of his mind and ignoring the detailed submission and explanation furnished before him during the course of personal hearing granted by him to the appellant. 2. That the authorities below were not justified to make an addition of Rs. 51,91,000 in the block assessment as alleged undisclosed income without any basis and without even referring to the secti...

Modern Metal Works Vs. Cegat

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(92)ELT50(Del)

ORDER1. Aggrieved by an order of May 27, 1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise. M/s. Modern Metal Works, who is the petitioner before me, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was disposed of on 29th August, 1986 with a direction to the Principal Collector to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. However, it appears that the matter was not heard by the Principal Collector himself but by the Director Publication and that too not within the period prescribed. Consequent upon the order so passed an application was moved by the Department for condensation of delay. The petitioner firm, however, opposed the application. This led to a difference of opinion on the question as to whether delay could be condoned or not. On account of that difference of opinion the following question was referred by the Appellate Tribunal to the President in terms of the Proviso to Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act read with Section...

Rohtak Textiles Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1997]226ITR485(Delhi)

1. At the instance of the assessee, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78, the question referred for the opinion of this court is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 6,078 being damages paid under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is deductible under Chapter IV-D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The real question to be determined would be whether damages paid under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, are penal in nature or not. The answer to this question would determine whether the damages paid under section 14B can be allowed as deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT : 1983ECR1942D(SC) , the Supreme Court has held that no expense which was paid by way of penalty for a breach of the law, even though it might involve no personal liability, could be said to be an amount ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ghewar Chand Kanuga

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1997]228ITR460(Delhi)

1. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, the following two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court, one at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessed : At the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the interest income of Rs. 48,000 earned on the amounts transferred from the capital accounts of the minors to the fixed deposit accounts is not taxable in the hands of the assessed as per the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' At the instance of assessed : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in concluding that the sum of Rs. 25,280 had been earned by the assessor's minor children from the admission of these minors to the benefits of partnership and hence the said sum was includible towards the total income of the a...

J.J. Foams (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]229ITR590(Delhi)

1. At the instance of the assessee, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79, the questions referred for the opinion of this court are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of moneys received from persons for allotment of shares but which continued to remain with the company without shares being allotted, would amount to deposit as envisaged by section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, thereforee, 15 per cent. of interest payable on such sums of moneys is disallowable under section 40A(8) ?' 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the actual cost of all depreciable assets is includible, instead of written down values, in the capital employed in the industrial undertaking, under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 3. From the statement of the case, it appears that the assessed itself treated the amounts retained by it as deposits and paid interest to the applicants who had made payment for allotment of...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Universal Steel and Alloys Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN289(Delhi)

1. At the instance of the revenue, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77, the question referred for the opinion of this Court is as follows :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing inclusion of value of work-in-progress for computing capital employed in the industrial undertaking for deduction under section 80J ?'2. Since in our view the answer to the question stands concluded by a decision of the Bombay High Court, affirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court, we dispense with filing of the paper book.3. In the case before the Bombay High Court CIT v. Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. : [1979]119ITR164(Bom) , the question that has been ref erred at the instance of the revenue for opinion of the Bombay High Court was whether the amount representing the cost of plant and machinery not installed and the cost of workshop under construction could be taken into account in determining the capital employed in the undertaking for the purpose of granting ...

Express Movers (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Del)227

ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A.M. :This appeal by the assessed is directed against the assessment order passed by the Dy. CIT Special Range-26, New Delhi under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, for the block period 1986-87 to 1995-96 plus the current period 1st April, 1995, to 15th September, 1995, up to the date of search.2. The assessed has raised the following grounds in this appeal :'1. That the authorities below were not justified to pass the order under s. 158BC of the IT Act without compliance of provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act and the assessment framed is illegal and deserves to be quashed.That the learned CIT has granted the approval under s. 158BC of the IT Act in a mechanical manner and without application of his mind and ignoring the detailed submission and Explanationn furnished before him during the course of personal hearing granted by him to the appellant.2. That the authorities below were not justified to make an addition of Rs. 51,91,000 in the block assessment a...

Satish Kumar Sood (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Del)146

ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A.M. :The assessed in this appeal is aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming a penalty of Rs. 7,869 imposed on the assessed by the ITO under s. 271(1)(c).2. I have heard both the parties and have also perused the orders passed by the tax authorities. It is accepted between the parties that the penalty proceedings were initiated and the penalty levied in respect of a sum of Rs. 15,000 purported to have been received as a loan from one Shri Adarsh Arora, but which the assessed was not able to substantiate in the course of the assessment proceedings. The addition ultimately came to be confirmed by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings and a copy of the order of the Tribunal has been placed on record.3. Adverting to the assessment order it is seen that the assessed derives income from interest in respect of advances made to various members of the family as also on deposits with the companies, firms, etc. For advancing the aforesaid loans the assessed ha...

RosIn and Terpentine Factory Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT187TriDel

1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Rosin and Terpentine Factory, the point for determination is whether the phenyle was medicament as claimed by the appellants or was a disinfectant as classified by the Revenue. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise Chandigarh who had adjudicated the matter, had held that keeping in view the function, use and description of the product in question it was classifiable under Heading No. 3801.90 as disinfectant. The order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh who in para 5 of her order held as under :- 5. "I have gone through the case records. The point for determination is whether 'Phenyl' is classifiable under sub-heading 3901.90 or 3003.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. I agree with the finding of the Assistant Collector that just because the product is used in cleaning of wounds of animals, it cannot be inferred that it is a medicament and also...