Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)59ITD370(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 28-3-1990 for the assessment year 1988-89 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1988.2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of running a printing press, under the name and style of Kumar Printers (P.) Ltd. It specialised in printing small cartons for drug companies.In the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) on 31 -8-1989, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 3,61,684 by invoking Explanation to Section 43(1) by observing as under :- During the year assessee has purchased and installed machinery on which he has paid interest of Rs. 3,61,684 to the D.F.C. up to the date of installation and has debited Rs. 3,61,684 in the head "Interest and bank charges". During the course of discussions assessee was asked to informate as to why the interest paid up to the date of installation should not be capitalised as per Explanation to Section 43. Assessee vide his letter dated 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)56ITD355(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT (Central) I, New Delhi made under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on various grounds.2. The brief facts in this case are that the Assessing Officer allowed deduction in respect of interest claimed including interest of Rs. 1,29,20,298 pertaining to term loans.2.1 The CIT felt that the interest on term loans and commitment charges for specific projects for the period prior to the commissioning of plant & machinery could not be treated as revenue expenditure and that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly he issued a show-cause notice to the assessee wherein it was mentioned that the assessee claimed interest in respect of cement works at Dalmiapuram. It was further stated in the notice that interest of Rs. 73,87,856 was in respect of term loan obtained for TPD modernisation project at Dalmiapuram. It further mentioned that out of total interest of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)56ITD470(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the DC (Appeals) dated 4-2-1991 for the assessment year 1987-88 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1987.2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1987-88, the AO made the assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 by his order dated 30-3-1988 on a total income of Rs. 1,15,361. In the assessment order it was stated that notice for the levy of penalty under Section 271B has been issued separately. In the notice issued under Section 271B dated 30-3-1988, the AO charged that the assessee "has not filed the Audit Report prescribed under Section 44AB read with Rule 6G without reasonable cause explained". In response to the same, the assessee filed a written reply dated 27-3-1989. In the said reply, the assessee stated that a comprehensive reply had already been filed, that the said reply has not been referred to before issuing the notice dated 30-3-1988, that Section 271B was attracted only i...
Tag this Judgment!