Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)104ITD257(Mum.)
..... that amount mistakenly paid was lost to the assessee in view of the provisions of article 265 of the constitution of india, which provides that no tax can be collected except by authority of law. however, he expressed the view that the learned cit (a) does not have the powers as vested in the high court in writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india. he, however, observed that in a situation like this, the remedy lies ..... of the assessee is appealable or not.5. first we take up the issue regarding maintainability of the appeal before the learned cit (a). no doubt, there is no inherent right of appeal and the right of appeal can be exercised only where it is conferred by the statute, as held by the hon'ble supreme court in thecase of cit v. ashoka engineering co. 194 itr 645 ..... to the amount of excess tax paid which was ascertainable at the time of filing of the return and consequently it does not contemplate refund which could be ascertained thereafter. certainly it is clear that form-30 cannot be filed where the refund is ascertainable after the assessment or by virtue of appeal order passed after the expiry of one year from the end ..... provision, rule-41 has been enacted which provides that such claim shall be made in form-30 which shall be accompanied by a return prescribed under section 139 unless the claimant has already made such a return to the assessing officer. in form-30, the assessee is required to state the total income of the previous year, the total .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)9SOT254(Mum.)
..... amount mistakenly paid was lost to the assessee in view of the provisions of article 265 of the constitution of india, which provides that no tax can be collected except by authority of law. however, he expressed the view that the learned commissioner (appeals) does not have the powers as vested in the high court in writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india. he, however, observed that in a situation like this, the remedy ..... claim of the assessee is appealable or not.first we take up the issue regarding maintainability of the appeal before the learned commissioner (appeals). no doubt, there is no inherent right of appeal and the right of appeal can be exercised only where it is conferred by the statute, as held by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of cit v. ashoka engg. co. ( 1992) 194 ..... amount of excess tax paid which was ascertainable at the time of filing of the return and con sequently it does not contemplate refund which could be ascertained thereafter. certainly it is clear that form no. 30 cannot be filed where the refund is ascertainable after the assessment or by virtue of appeal order passed after the expiry of one year from the ..... rule 41 has been enacted which provides that such claim shall be made in form no. 30 which shall be accompanied by a return prescribed under section 139 unless the claimant has already made such a return to the assessing officer. in form no. 30, the assessee is required to state the total income of the previous year, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The Hon'ble President, ITAT, vide order dated 7.8.2006 has constituted this Bench to adjudicate the following issue: Whether in the light of the decision in 232 ITR 2 it must be held that mesnc profit received by the assessee is revenue income chargeable to tax.as well as to dispose off the appeal of the assessee containing the following grounds: (1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax. (Appeals (CIT(A)[ erred in holding that the mesnc profit of Rs. 34,57,01,137/- received by the Appellant pursuant to the consent decree dated 08.01.2002 constitutes revenue receipt assessable to tax and consequently, in confirming the AO's order bringing the same to tax.P. Mariappa Gounder v. CIT and DCIT Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SOT 918 (Del) mesne profits constitute taxable revenue receipts. (3) He further erred in this connection in holding that paragraphs 28 to 31 of the Tribunal's order dated 16.12.2004 pertaining to block assessment were not the operative parts of the Tribunal's order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These appeals are preferred by the assessee as well as the revenue against the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since common issues are involved in these appeals these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. These appeals are preferred by the assessee on almost common grounds. We, therefore, adjudicate them on the basis of issues involved therein.3. In appeal No. 8045/M/2003 first ground relates to the validity of reopening of assessment. During the course of hearing this ground was not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee. As such it is dismissed being not pressed.4. Next issue in these appeals relates to the computation of deduction under Section 33AC. For the sake of reference we take up the facts for the assessment year 1997-98 in ITA No. 8045 of 2003 in which the assessee, claimed deduction under Section 33AC on interest income and miscellaneous income amounting to Rs. 1,22,630 besides other business income of oper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)53
1. The assessee as well as the Revenue are impugning the orders of learned first appellate authority in this bunch of 14 appeals and two cross-objections in asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1999-2000. The learned Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a comprehensive chart exhibiting the grievances of respective parties in different years. A perusal of this chart shows that orders of the learned first appellate authority are being impugned on 28 counts. Some of the issues are common in the appeals of the respective parties as well as in different years. Therefore, we proceed to take up the issue in dispute in seriatim.2. Before taking up the issues on merit it is pertinent to note that cross-objections of assessee in asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are time-barred by 3 yrs., 101 days and 2 yrs., 217 days, respectively, therefore, first we deal with the petition for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objections.3. In order to explain the delay assessee has submitted that the grounds...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. After considering the opinion of the Vice-President (Mumbai) and the relevant case laws and the conflict between different Benches of the Tribunal on the issue involved, I deem it fit and appropriate to refer the appeal for consideration and disposal by a Special Bench of three Members at Mumbai.2. In order to help the interveners, who may wish to join the proceeding, the following question is framed: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, disallowance of expenditure in the shape of payment to a non-resident by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) read with Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is justified? 3. The Special Bench may modify, change the questions or add other questions as are deemed relevant and necessary for disposing of the controversy raised by the parties before the Bench.4. The appeal may be fixed before the Special Bench in November/December 2006. The name of the three Members constituting the Bench shall be nominated later on.1. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)22ITD87(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal relating to the assessment year 1980-81 preferred by M/s Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, West Germany, hereinafter referred to as "the assessee".2. We will set out in broad terms the background in which the appeal has come to be heard by this Special Bench.3. The assessment made is in the status of a non-resident. The accounting period is from 1-10-1978 to 30-9-1979. The assessee had entered into various agreements with parties in India and in the present appeal the terms of 11 such agreements came up for consideration involving payments which could be grouped together under 14 items. Different nomenclature has been assigned to different items of payments. The descriptive break-up is as under :-- The details of the 14 different items giving reference to the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, as also to the articles/clauses in the relevant agreements, and indicating wherever such agreements had been the subject of consideration in the assessment order for the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)103ITD119(Mum.)
1. The cross appeals by the assessee as well as Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee pertaining to various issues have been heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The main issue arising in these appeals is whether assessee is eligible to claim deduction Under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Briefly stated the facts are these: The assessee was engaged in the business of tour operator as well as dealing in foreign currency. It buys/sells foreign currency from and to foreign tourists as well as in the market on retail as well as wholesale basis. Such dealing is authorized by the Reserve Bank of India. Whenever excess foreign currency was accumulated, it dispatched the same physically to credit Swiss (Bank) Switzerland through Airlines. The said Bank, after physical checking of such currency, was required to pay the assessee into their NOSTRO account with some other Bank in USA or UK as the case may b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD880(Mum.)
1. The following question has been referred to the Special Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, in Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v.ITO [IT Appeal Nos. 464 (Bom.) of 1981, 1966 (Bom.) of 1980 and 465 (Bom) of 1981] under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") : Whether the 'negative cost' incurred by way of foregoing of dividends from the profits of the company should be allowed under Section 48(17) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in computing the capital gains in the case of transfer of the shares? 2. Asbestos Cement Ltd., as agents to Turner & Newalla Ltd., Bombay, and Blundell Permoglaze Holdings Ltd., Bombay, are the interveners.3. During the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78, the assessee-company, namely, Investment Corporation of India Ltd., sold certain shares held by it in various companies and declared capital losses amounting to Rs. 13,17,729, Rs. 28,27,202 and Rs. 16,30,352, respectively. While computi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)82ITD158(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the Department are directed against the combined order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 3rd Jan., 1992 for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1980-81 passed under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). The Department has expressed its grievance by raising the following grounds in its appeals. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in granting depreciation on WDV of Scientific research assets where deduction has been granted under Section 35 of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to the above facts the CIT(A) ought to have considered the amendment to Section 35(2) (iv) of the IT Act with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1962 wherein no depreciation is to be granted under Section 32 where deduction has been granted under Section 35 of the Act." 2. Earlier, the CIT(A), in quantum appeals, had confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on the written down value (WDV) of scientific research assets on which deduction had been allowed un...
Tag this Judgment!