Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)51ITD582(Delhi)
1. The present appeal filed by the department is with reference to the provision of tax that should have been deducted from the payment of hire charges of ship that is contained in Section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The objection of the department in the present appeal is on the conclusion by the CIT(A) that the hire charges is not liable to be taxed in India because of the provisions of Double Taxation Agreement between India & UK (DTA).2. The dispute started with the assessee-company applying to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ACIT) for the issuing of 'No Objection Certificate' that was required by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for allowing any remittance out of India. The respondent company vide its letter dated 10-3-1993 applied for the above certificate for the remittance of US Dollars 104642.10 to M/s. Drake Maritime S.A.-London (DM) which covered the hire charges of a ship (H.V.Pelican). The respondent had stated that Oil & Natural Gas C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)51ITD507(Delhi)
1. The appeal filed by the department and cross-objection filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 19-4-1989 for assessment year 1985-86 are taken together for the sake of convenience.2. Shri D.D. Goyal represented the department and Shri Ashok Malik, CA appeared on behalf of the assessee.3. We would take up the appeal of the department first. The sole contention raised in this appeal pertains to acceptance of assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an exporter who claimed deduction of Rs. 10,38,359 on the export turnover made in the assessment year 1985-86.The assessee's accounting period ended on 31-12-1984. On scrutiny of the assessee's claim in respect of deduction under Section 80HHC, it was found that on 1-12-1983 the assessee company entered into agreement with M/s. Mahajan International - its sister concern. As per the terms of the contract the goods expo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)52ITD83(Delhi)
1. The second batch of appeals consisting of ITA Nos. 6663, 6664, 6672, 6673, 6675, 6685 and 6689 (Del.) of 1989 were first heard on 8-9-1994 partly and they were completed hearing on 15-9-1994. The first batch of appeals consisting of ITA Nos. 6621, 6629 & 6632 (Del.) of 1989 were heard fully on 15-9-1994. Since the point involved is common in both these batches of appeals they are disposed of by a common order.2. These are assessees' appeals relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and they all arise out of similar but separate orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Dehradun, dated 12-7-1989.The assessees are all foreign technicians engaged by a foreign company M/s Atwood Oceanics International ('AOI' for short). The AOI entered into a contract of operation services and maintenance with regard to two rigs operating offshore in the territorial waters of India with Oil and Natural Gas Commission. With a view to fulfil its contractual obligations AOI had entered i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)51ITD591(Delhi)
1. These are penalty appeals pertaining to the provisions of Sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(a). Taking up for consideration the appeal pertaining to Section 271(1)(c) the relevant facts are that the assessee is a private limited company deriving income from the manufacture of carpets and durries and export of the same to the United States. In the return of income, the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,06,583 on account of commission to one Smt. Sushil Umrao Singh. Vide order sheet entry dated 14-11-1985, the assessee-company was requested to file a confirmation from the lady. Even subsequently, on 10-12-1985 and 16-12-1985, the same directions were given to the assessee but there was no compliance and finally on 6-1-1986, the assessee's counsel was asked either to file confirmation or surrender the amount of commission for taxation by filing a revised return or in the alternative to produce the lady for cross-examination. The assessee expressed its inability to produce the lady...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)51ITD447(Delhi)
1. 1 to 34 [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 35. We now come to the various grounds raised by the assessee with reference to the computation of "book profit" under Section 115J. It would not be out of context to state that these grounds were vehemently argued by both the sides with reference to the relevant provisions of law, the facts on record and the decision cited at the bar by both of them.36. The first issue pertains to the deduction on account of depreciation in working out the book profit. The assessee-company determined the book profit at a loss of Rs. 6,11,56,136 by charging depreciation of Rs. 46,42,18,709 which had been worked out under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The books of accounts however, revealed a profit of Rs. 34,00,83,889 after depreciation had been deducted in accordance with the "straight-line method". To appreciate the controversy in better perspective, it would be necessary to reproduce the following figures appearing i...
Tag this Judgment!