Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Muzaffarnagar dated 11.10.2011 in Appeal No. 234/10-11/MZR for AY 2006-07. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing to set off unabsorbed depreciation relating to AY 2000-01 and 2001-02 against the income from other sources by ignoring the order dated 29.04.2011 of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench "C" New Delhi in ITA No.4983/Del/2010 in the case of ACIT, Circle-I, Muzaffarnagar vs M/s HRJ Steels(P) Ltd. Muzaffarnagar where it was held that amount of current depreciation for AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 which cannot be set off shall be carried forward for a maximum period of 8 assessment years and to be set off only against the income under the head profit and gain of business or profession. 2. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) be s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
G.D. Agrawal, VP: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi dated 31st December, 2012 for the AY 2009-10. 2. Ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under:- "Whether the ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of `26,94,840/- made on account of capitalization of software expenses ignoring the fact that - (a) The expenses on the nature of capital expenditure are not allowed under the provision of section 37(1). (b) The aim of the expenditure incurred by the assessee is clearly in the nature of acquisition of an advantage of lasting nature and to bring an enduring benefit to the business." 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find this issue to be covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 vide ITA No.1330/Del/2012 and AY 2008-09 vide ITA No.4743/Del/2012. That Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has upheld the order o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
A.D. Jain, Judicial Member: 1. These are cross appeals for Assessment Year 2006-07 against the Order dated 07.10.2010 passed by the Ld. CIT (A)-VIII, New Delhi. 2. ITA No.5527/Del/2010 has been filed by the assessee whereas ITA No.5791/Del/2010 has been preferred by the department. 3. In ITA No.5527/Del/2010, the following grounds have been taken by the assessee:- "1 (i). That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) having confirmed the disallowance of the claim of interest to the extent of Rs.14,82,540/- as attributable to earning of dividend income on mutual fund, there is no case of any further disallowance in terms of rule 8D as these rules are not relevant in the year under reference. (ii) That these rules are not in conformity with provisions of sec.14A and as such these rules are illegal and invalid. (iii) That there being no dispute or finding that there is a case of any expenses other than claim of interest to the extent of Rs.14,82,540/- relating to issue ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
TS. Kapoor, AM: 1. These are four appeals filed by the revenue against separate orders of Ld CIT(A) all dated 3.5.2010. The assessee has also filed cross objections to the appeals foiled by the revenue in all the four years. Similar grounds of appeals has been taken by the revenue and similar grounds in cross objections has been taken by the assessee. For the sake of convenience, the grounds of appeals for assessment year 2000-01 as well as cross objections for assessment year 2000-01 are reproduced below:- I.T.A. No.3720/Del/2010 (A.Y. 2000- 2000-01): 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in annulling the assessment made u/s 153C. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by holding that the seized documents on the basis of which proceedings u/s 153C were initiated do ot belong to the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in interpretin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member 1. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-XXV, New Delhi both dated 20.12.2012 for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 in Appeal No. 115/2011-12 and 122/2011-12 respectively. 2. The revenue has raised similar sole ground of appeal in both these appeals which reads as under:- "1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as fact in directing the Assessing Officer to examine the case and recomputed the deduction u/s 80-HHC after giving 2 ITA No.1124 and 1125/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2003-04 full opportunity to the assessee which amounts to setting aside the matter which is not permissible in law." 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are that the original assessments were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 (for short the Act) vide order dated 10.05.2007 after making disallowance of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act amounting to Rs. 39,89,187 and Rs. 20,10,594/- respectively in bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
A.D. Jain, Judicial Member: 1. This is Assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 against the order dated 24.03.2009, passed by the Ld. CIT, Moradabad, enhancing the income of the assessee, as assessed by the Assessing Officer at ` 86,460/-, to ` 8,14,253/-. 2. The assessee Partnership Firm came into existence on 01.01.2005, vide Partnership Deed executed on 20.11.2005. It comprised of three partners, Smt. Chhama Jain, Smt. Manka Jain and Shri Jaideep Jain, having 1/3 share each. As per the Partnership Deed, the said parties had agreed to carry on business of constructing godowns and renting them to the Government and other parties and earn rental income and any other business deemed suitable for the firm. In the return of income filed by the firm, a loss of ` 3,804/- was declared. Vide Order dated 08.05.2007, passed u/s 143 (3) of the IT Act, the assessment of the assessee was completed at an income of ` 86,460/- by the Assessing Officer, on satisfying himself regarding the income ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
A.D. Jain, Judicial Member: 1. This is Assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 against the order dated 11.05.2012, passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi, taking the following grounds:- "1. That the order u/s 250(6) passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is bad in Law, wrong on facts and against the principles of natural justice . 2. (a) The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs.2,16,17,150/- claimed by the appellant company under the head 'Bad Debts Written Off' on the ground that the aforesaid claim for bad debts remained unsubstantiated. (b) The Hon'ble CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance out of bad debts on the grounds that bad debts remain unsubstantiated whereas the necessary documents in support of the claim were duly filed during appellate proceedings alongwith application under Rule 46A and the additional evidence was not accepted by the Hon'ble CIT( A) on the grounds that there was no sufficient cause for not filing the additional evidence. Th...
Tag this Judgment!