Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)50ITD208(Delhi)
1. The short point involved in these two appeals by the assessee is whether on facts the learned DCWT(A) is justified in upholding the withdrawal of proportionate liabilities towards municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 47,549 and Rs. 42,445 in assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 by applying provisions of Section 2(m)(ii) of Wealth-tax Act (the Act) in rectification proceedings carried under Section 35 of the Act.2. The facts briefly stated are that assessee's returns of wealth were accepted under Section 16(1) of the Acton March 20, 1987. In the aforesaid assessed wealth, the deduction of entire municipal taxes on house property including the portion which was treated as exempt under Section 5(1)(iu) of the Wealth-tax Act was allowed. It is seen from record that in assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the proportionate liabilities of municipal taxes attributable to the portion of the house, treated as exempt was disallowed and this disallowance was confirmed on appeal by Income-tax App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)49ITD489(Delhi)
1. The assessee-HUF has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi dated 25-10-1991, The main grievance of the appellant-HUF is that, the income that has been received by it from the lease of the flat in Nirmal Towers should not have been assessed under the head 'Income from house property', because, the said flat is not registered in its name, for being treated as owner of the flat. The claim of the appellant is that, all along the income so earned was being assessed as income from other sources, following the Delhi High Court decision in Sushil Ansal v. CIT[ 1986] 160 ITR 308. The change made by the assessing authorities, is based on the amendment to Section 27(iii) of the Act, which speaks of flats being given by companies that build it under their house building schemes. The plea of the appellant is that, the company that had built the said building and allotted the flat on lease basic has no such scheme and therefore, the said section has no applicability t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)50ITD233(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a limited company has filed this appeal and has raised a few issues. Each of these issues have been taken in seriatim and have been disposed of in that order.2. The first issue is related to the addition of Rs. 99,69,146 representing profit that has accrued on sale of 630 MT of isabutanol.The brief facts of this issue are stated below. M/s India Crafts (hereinafter referred to as IC) had Imported 630 MT of isabutanol from Netherlands against the REP licences that had been provided to it for the various exports made by it. The goods were sent through a ship named 'Rainbow' on 6-6-1987 and the documents were sent through the supplier's bankers, Bank of Credit & Commerce Hongkong Ltd. On 9-6-1987, the assessee entered into an agreement with IC for purchase of 630 MT of Isabutanol on High Sea sale basis, as an actual user. This agreement provided for (a) the assessee shall make full payment of document consisting of CIF value, L/C, bank's interest, commission and othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)49ITD590(Delhi)
1. The assessee, is a non-resident, carrying on contracts works for various concerns in connection with Bombay High Off-shore Oil Rigs, has filed these appeals. For the assessment year 1984-85, the appeals are against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and against the order of CIT(A) arising out of the reversionary proceedings. The appeals for the assessment years 1985-86 & 1986-87 are arising from the order of CIT(A). The appeals involve the common issue that relate to the non-applicability of the notification issued dated 31-3-1993 to its activities. The alternative claim is that, Section 44BB of the Act which overrides the provisions of Section 28 to 41 of the Act, does not permit adding of the taxes paid on its behalf as its receipts for arriving at its taxable income. The second related alternative claim is that, the grossing up of the tax to the receipts should be done once only, the probable Surtax liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)49ITD647(Delhi)
1. The appeals of the assessee for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were disposed of by a consolidated order dated 28th February, 1992.Reference applications under Section 256(1) were filed by the CIT, Delhi-VII, New Delhi. The said reference applications were notified by the Registry as barred by limitation. Accordingly opportunity was given to the applicant for explaining the delay. The applicant did not file any explanation for the delay nor was any application filed for condo nation of delay. Reference applications were accordingly rejected as barred by limitation.2. The revenue has filed application requesting for recalling the order dated 20th October, 1992 on the ground that the reference applications filed by the revenue were not barred by limitation as the order of the Tribunal had been served on the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax who had forwarded the same to the concerned Commissioner of Income-tax.Whereas the date of service of the order upon the Chief Commissioner o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)49ITD653(Delhi)
1. The appellant is an individual, is aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) in upholding the order of ACIT, Investigation Circle, Muzzafarnagar, has filed this appeal. The grievance of the appellant is that, the loan received by him from M/s Jagmohan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (henceforth referred to as JCPL), should not have been treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has filed this appeal.2. The appellant, had filed his return showing income from salary, professional income, interest income and agricultural income. The appellant had invested Rs. 1,25,77,800 on 10826 shares of Mercator Lines Ltd. (henceforth referred to as MLL). These shares were acquired between 30-12-1987 and 15-6-1988, from Ram Chandani & Family in lots of 975, 775, 1565, 1640, 3605 & 2265. The last two lots of 3605 and 2265 shares were purchased for a consideration of Rs. 44,16,125 and Rs. 27,74,625 respectively. The sources of acquisition of these two lots were expl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)49ITD576(Delhi)
1. The dispute, in this appeal, of the revenue, which is directed against the order dated 8-12-1989 of CIT(A) I, New Delhi is relating to cancellation of penalty of Rs. 6,48,045 imposed under Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Briefly stating the facts the assessee-company filed its return of income for assessment year 1987-88 on 31st of July, 1987 declaring income of Rs. 5,89,14,251. However, self-assessment tax had not been paid before filing of the return. The assessee paid the self-assessment tax on the basis of the return only on 12-9-1987. Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee as to why penalty under Section 140A(3) may not be imposed for non-payment of tax on the basis of the return as per Section 140A. (1) There is no default in terms of Section 140A(1) & (3) because the assessee did not have the requisite funds which were remitted to India on 11-9-1987. (2) The levy of penalty is not automatic and an opportunity of being heard should be granted. (3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)49ITD21(Delhi)
1. These are cross appeals, preferred by both the parties, being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on various grounds. These came up for hearing before the Special Bench constituted by the President along with the appeal of Indian Communication Network (P.) Ltd. in the circumstances narrated in the order of the Tribunal in the latter appeal. Taking up for consideration the assessee's appeal, the first ground raised reads as follows : "1. Your appellant submits that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX erred in law in not allowing excise duty as claimed by your appellant in the sum of Rs. 81,60,723 under the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 2. The assessee in this case is a public limited company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of various kinds of food products, like NESCAFE" instant coffee, "LACTOGEN" baby food, "MAGGI" noodles, "CERELAC" baby cereal, etc.3...
Tag this Judgment!