Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)290ITR128(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-10, New Delhi (Assessing Officer) dated 30/9/98 passed Under Section 158BC for the block period.2. The assessee in the present case is a company registered with Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana, New Delhi on 30^th December, 1992 with the main object of harvesting fish from open seas. A search operation Under Section 132 was initiated in this case on 6/11/96 which was temporarily concluded on the same date to be recommenced subsequently. During the course of the search operation, fishing vessels/trawlers of the assessee company viz. Arats, Aries and Vega were searched and sealed. An order Under Section 132(3) was also passed in respect of the said fishing trawlers which was served on Capt. V.S.Gopinath, Deputy Conservator of Port Trust, Margaon, Goa. This restraint order Under Section 132(3) was subsequently stated to be lifted and the search was claimed to have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)282ITR180(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dated 22/10/2001 and the solitary issue which arises for our consideration out of the same is whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest Under Section 234B & 234C on the income computed Under Section 115JA on the basis of book profit while processing the return Under Section 143(1)(a).2. The assessee in the present case is a limited company. A return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it showing a total income of Rs. 1,25,82,140/- being 30% of its book profit in accordance with the provisions of Section 115JA and a self assessment tax of Rs. 42,14,312/- was also paid on such income after claiming adjustment for TDS amounting to Rs. 1,89,437/-. The income so declared was accepted by the Assessing Officer while processing the return filed by the assessee Under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)283ITR28(Delhi)
1. These four appeals pertain to asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1994-95, 1996-97 and 2000-2001. Appeal in ITA No. 5252/Del/1998 is Revenue's appeal filed on 3rd Nov., 1998 against the order of the learned CIT(A) XVI, New Delhi dt. 4th Aug., 1998 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1995-96. Appeal in ITA No. 3805/Del/1999 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 24th Sept., 1999 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi dt.4th June, 1999 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1994-95. Appeal in ITA No.1786/Del/2000 is the appeal filed by the Revenue on 10th April, 2000 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dt. 17th Jan., 2000 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-97, and the appeal in ITA No.4670/Del/2003 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 14th Oct., 2003 against the order of the learned CIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)5SOT362(Delhi)
As certain common facts are involved in these three appeals the same were argued together by the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned departmental Representative We are deciding these appeals by this common order for convenience. Appeal in ITA Nos. 1754 and 1755 are the appeals filed by the assessee on 4-4-2001 against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 28-2-2001 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under section 143(3) for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Appeal in ITA No. 1948 is the appeal filed by revenue on 14-5-2001 for assessment year 1997-98. The common point involved in these three appeals is as to whether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on certain assets under hire-purchase.Facts of the case leading to these appeals briefly are that the assessee-company was engaged in these years in the business of leasing and other related financial activities. For assessment year 1995-96, the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)220
1. This appeal by the Revenue for asst. yr. 1998-99 is directed against order of CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs. 30 lakhs received from landlord for vacation of premises at 152, Golf Links, New Delhi. The AO assessed the amount under the head "Capital gains" whereas CIT(A) held it to be a capital receipt not liable to tax.2. The facts of the case are that assessee is lawyer by profession and had been representing and guiding M/s Gedore Tools (P) Ltd. [now named M/s Jhalani Tools (I) Ltd.] for the past several years. For utilizing retainership services in a better manner, above company allowed the assessee to occupy ground floor of above premises, as per letters/agreement dt. 5th Aug., 1977. Copy of above agreement is available on record and is also reproduced in the impugned orders. The assessee continued to occupy these premises till April, 1997 when he was persuaded by Jhalani Tools (I) Ltd. not to obstruct the surrender of premises to Shri T.R. Anand, who had purchased the property...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)5SOT262(Delhi)
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-2-2002 for assessment year 1998-99. In the first ground the assessee is aggrieved against two disallowances, viz. Rs. 1,06,500 being expenses incurred in connection with the mutation of property and Rs. 46,504 representing cost of pagers each costing less than Rs. 5,000.The assessee-company is engaged in the business of trading, export, import and real estate. It had declared a total loss of Rs. 1,35,44,542 for the year under consideration. The expenditure of Rs. 1,06,500 was incurred for the mutation of the property which was the office building of the assessee. Since the assessing officer considered this to be of capital nature, he disallowed the claim of the assessee. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it was contended that mutation was necessitated only on account of the change in the name of the company and not because the property was duly purchased. However, the Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)4SOT825(Delhi)
This appeal by the assessee is against the order passed by the CIT(A) for Block Period 1-4-1995 to 22-8-2001.The facts of the case are that the assessee was holding a free hold plot No. 20/4, situated on Gurgaon Mehrauli Road, Sukhrali Chowk, Gurgaon admeasuring 11 Kanals, 8 Marlas equivalent to 6897 sq. yds. M/s Elite Promoters P. Ltd. being a builder, vide Collaboration Agreement dated 19-5-1997 agreed to construct a multi-storied office-cum-commercial complex, consisting of two basements, Ground and Seven floors (presently known as "Palm Court") as its own cost and expenses, after obtaining all necessary Government's approvals on equal sharing ratio i.e. 50% of saleable area. Accordingly, Plan bearing No.1155ME dated 3-9-1997 for construction of "Palm Court" Project was submitted to Municipal Committee, Gurgaon, Haryana and subsequently vide their certificate bearing No. 2363 dated 11-5-2000 the requisite Completion Certificate was issued to them. Simultaneously other certificates ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)7SOT596(Delhi)
This appeal of the revenue and cross objection raised by the assessee relate to the order dated 20-11-1998 of Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1995-96. Both the appeals which relate to the same assessment year and were heard together are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In the revenue's appeal, the following grounds have been raised : "(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in directing the assessing officer to recompute the capital gained under section 45 of the Income Tax Act with reference to the consideration received for the said transfer vis-a-vis the cost of acquisition of undertaking without appreciating the facts that the assessee itself worked out the capital gain in the return of income on net asset value method and without appreciating the fact that the capital gains on depreciable assets are to be worked out in accordance with the special provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)5SOT200(Delhi)
These five appeals have been filed by the same assessee against different orders of Learned Commissioner (Appeals) for financial years 1995-96 to 1999-2000. As facts and circumstances and issues pertaining to these appeals are similar, for the sake of convenience, these five appeals were heard and are being decided together.Shri M.S. Sekhon, Learned Chartered Accountant appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Rananjay Singh, Senior Departmental Representative represented the revenue.Before dealing with the individual appeals, we consider it proper to narrate the background and relevant facts relating to this matter which are as under : The Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Defence formulated a scheme in 1979 to raise ex-servicemen coal transport companies. The purpose of the scheme was to have union free captive transport companies in coal subsidiaries of Coal India Limited and to provide resettlement opportunity to ex-servicemen. This scheme laid down the eligibility criteria for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)108
1. ITA No. 2823/Del/2004 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 5th March, 2004 of learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yr. 2000-01. ITA No. 819/Del/2005 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 25th Jan., 2005 of learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. Common issues are involved in both these appeals and were heard together. We deem it convenient to pass this common order.3. The first issue that arises for consideration in both these appeals is with regard to the disallowance made by the AO out of administrative expenses paid by the assessee to M/s Smithkline Beachem Consumer Hair (sic-Health) Care Ltd. (SBCH). The grievance of the assessee in this regard is projected in ground No. 1 to 1.9 in ITA No. 2823/Del/2004 and in ground Nos. 1 to 1.20 in ITA No. 819/Del/2005. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the aforesaid ground of appeal are as follows. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture ...
Tag this Judgment!