Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)671
1. The AO informed the Addl. CIT, Rewari Range, Rewari that against summons under Section 131 of the IT Act requiring the assessee to be personally present or to file photo copy of a conveyance deed/sale deed, neither any adjournment was sought nor any compliance was made, on three different dates. Subsequently, penalties amounting to Rs. 30,000, for the alleged three defaults, were imposed. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalties. The assesses is in further appeal before us.2. The contention of the assessee in the statement of fact has been that the assessee is a State Government Officer. His office is run in the name of Sub-Registrar, Rewari, through its registration clerk. The office has been created under the Indian Registration Act and the Punjab Land Registration Manual. All the Court summons are issued in the name of registration clerk. The summons in question were served in the office. The registration clerk was directed to comply with them. He was not aware- of the procedu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)565
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the asst. yr. 1992-93 for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1992.2. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture of power generating equipments and other heavy industrial items. The assessee-company carries out projects for various State Governments and other public sector undertakings and is also involved in the setting up of power plants in India as well as abroad.3. The assessee has obtained the permission of the COD to pursue the appeal and a copy of the approval of the COD has been placed on record vide order-sheet entry dt. 28th Aug., 2002.4. We shall proceed to dispose of the appeal ground-wise. The first ground which relates to the disallowance of provision for non-moving stock, is in two parts. The first part relates to the provision of Rs. 50.66 crores which is the total amount claimed, and second part relates to the provision of Rs. 211.24 lakhs. Both the provisions relate to the non-moving stock...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)372
1. The ground being common in these appeals by the assessees and the leading order of the learned CIT(A) being that in the case of Smt.Anuradha Kalra, we will deal with the facts as in ITA No.3923/Del/2003.2. The grievance of assessee is that the application filed under Section 154 of the Act was wrongly rejected; that the admissible relief under the proviso to Section 112(1) of the IT Act ought to have been allowed; that wrong calculation of tax on capital gain by the AO amounted to a mistake of law, which deserved to be rectified; and that while levying tax on capital gains as declared by the assessee in her return, the proviso to Section 112(1) of the Act could not be ignored.3. The assessee filed her return of income declaring income from long-term capital gains on sale of shares. The tax on long-term capital gains was worked out according to Section 48 of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee moved an application under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)269
1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the combined order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 26th Nov., 2004 for asst. yrs. 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02. As common issues are involved in all the three appeals, they are being disposed of together by this combined order for the sake of convenience. Besides raising certain issues on merits, the assessee has also challenged the validity of the notices issued under Section 143(2) and Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). We first take up the issue relating to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.2. The assessee-company is a pioneer in publishing scientific, technical, medical books and journals. It has appointed several distributors for selling its books in India and has also opened a liaison office on 1st Feb., 1998, after obtaining approval from the RBI. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18th Dec., 2002 in response to which the assessee filed its return of income declaring nil income on 14th Feb....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)282ITR151(Delhi)
1. The President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has originally referred the following question for my opinion as Third Member on a difference of opinion between the two Members : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the enhanced compensation received by the assesses was taxable in the hands of the assessee as income despite the fact that the quantum of enhanced compensation awarded is subject matter of proceedings before the appellate forum by the State Government as well as by the assessee and the quantum of enhanced compensation has not affined finality and the assessee has received a part of the enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation pursuant to interim orders passed by the appellate court? 2. This question arises, in the appeal for Asst. Year 1995-96. There was another difference between the two Members with regard to the taxability of interest received on the aforesaid disputed enhanced compensation and that arose in the appeal for Asst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)880
1. This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1998-99 arises out of order of CIT(A)-I, Dehradun passed under Section 201(1) of the Act. In ground No. 1 to 5 the assessee's grievance is that no tax was payable on remuneration of expatriates who fulfilled all the conditions of exemption in terms of Article XIV(2) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with France.2. The assessee is a Non-resident company incorporated in France.During the financial year 1987-88 relevant to assessment year 1988-89, the assessee company had executed three contracts with ONGC. The first was of Drilling operations on assessee's own rig I.D.A. The others were mannng and management services contacts for supervision of drilling activities carried on by ONGC on its own rigs namely (a)Sagar Vijay and (b) Sagar Bhushan. For the purpose of executing these contracts, the assessee engaged the services of number of technicians. In respect of expatriates deputed for business operations on Jack up rig I.D.A. owned by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)461
1. This is an appeal by M/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), against the order dt.13th May, 2003 of CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, relating to the financial year 2001-02.2. In this appeal the appellant has challenged order of the CIT(A) confirming the order of the AO, holding the appellant to be in default for not deducting tax at source at the applicable rates resulting in a short-deduction of tax at source and consequently holding the appellant to be in default under the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act and levying interest on tax not deducted at source under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the Act.3. The facts and circumstances under which the appeal arises are as follows. The appellant is a joint venture company between M/s Eli Lilly Inc., Netherlands, and M/s Ranbaxy Ltd., and is engaged in the trading of Pharmaceuticals. It imports these products and undertakes their marketing. The products are sold and marketed throughou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)490
1. This is Department's appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98, raising the following grounds : "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that deduction under Section 43B amounting to Rs. 6.07 lakhs be allowed even if the amount has been paid beyond the period provided under the Provident Fund Act but paid within the grace period of 5 days. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing that interest under Section 234B charged in view of the decision of apex Court in the case of CIT and Ors. v. Ranchi Club Ltd., ignoring the retrospective amendment proposed by the Finance Act, 2001." 2. Apropos the first ground, the issue is as to whether provident fund contribution amounting to Rs. 6,07,388, paid under Section 43B of the IT Act within the grace period of 5 days beyond the prescribed date, is allowable or not. The AO disallowed the payment. The learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, directing the AO to allow deduction if ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)1109
1. These two appeals have been filed by the revenue on 1.3.1999 and 7.8.2000 against the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXI and CIT (Appeals)-II, New Delhi dated 24.12.1998 and 29.3.2000 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under Section 143(3) for assessment years 1993-94 and 1996-97 respectively.2. First ground in revenue's appeal for assessment year 1993-94 is directed against deletion of disallowance of Rs. 40,01,911/- made by the Assessing Officer in relation to the assessee's claim of deduction by way of remuneration paid to field/sales organizers and sales promoters for sale of non-levy cement. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, facts of the case for assessment year 1993-94 in this behalf are on the same lines as in the earlier years. Following the reasons mentioned in the assessment orders of earlier years, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction of the sum of Rs. 40,01,911/-. On assessee's appeal, the ld. CIT (A) fo...
Tag this Judgment!