Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)558
1. IT(SS)A No. 411/Del/2004 is an appeal by the assessee and IT(SS)A No. 45/Del/2005 is an appeal by the Revenue. Both these appeals arise out of the order of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dt. 30th Nov., 2004.They are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. First we shall take up the assessee's appeal, i.e., IT(SS)A No.411/Del/2004 for consideration. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal by the assessee are as follows. The assessee is a company. M/s HCL Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s HCLCL'), M/s Shiv Nadar Investment (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SNIPL') and the assessee-company were promoters of a company by name, M/s HCL Consulting Ltd. The main objects of these three companies were making investments in various companies. The investments are in the form of contribution to share capital of various companies. They promote companies and hold shares of companies promoted. The shares are held by these companies in order to have po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 23-7-1997 against the order of the learned assessing officer being Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hissar Circle, Hissar, dated 27-6-1997 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act. This appeal has been assigned to us by the order of the Honble President, ITAT for disposal as well as for consideration and decision on the following question: What is the meaning and scope of phraseology, Such other materials or information as are available with the assessing officer and relatable to such evidence appearing in Section 158BB(1) of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1-7-1995." 2. In this appeal the assessee originally filed grounds of appeal running into 24 pages. As these grounds were not in accordance with Rule 8 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, the assessee was directed to file concise grounds of appeal. Finally the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)103ITD389(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 23rd July, 1997 against the order of the learned AO being Asstt. CIT, Hissar Circle, Hissar, dt. 27th June, 1997 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC of the IT Act. This appeal has been assigned to us by the order of the Hon'ble President, Tribunal for disposal as well as for consideration and decision on the following question: What is the meaning and scope of phraseology, 'such other materials or information as are available with the AO and relatable to such evidence' appearing in Section 158BB(1) of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995.2. In this appeal the assessee originally filed grounds of appeal running into 24 pages. As these grounds were not in accordance with Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules, the assessee was directed to file concise grounds of appeal. Finally the assessee filed revised "Summarized ground of appeal" on 8th Dec., ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)293ITR68(Delhi)
1. These are ten appeals, six filed by the assessee and four filed by the Revenue. Out of them, four appeals by the assessee and all the four appeals by the Revenue are cross-appeals for asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 whereas the remaining two appeals of the assessee are for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99. Since the issues involved in these ten appeals are common and interrelated, the same are being disposed of by this single consolidated order.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follows. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in USA (hereinafter referred to as 'Sheraton'). It is engaged in the business of providing various services related to hotels and provide such services to many hotels in the United States as well as other countries around the world including India. In India, it has been providing the services to M/s. ITC Hotels Ltd., M/s. ITC Ltd. (Hotel Division), etc. on the terms and conditions stipulated in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)534
1. This appeal by the assessee for asst. yr. 2002-03 arises out of order of CIT(A)-XXTX, New Delhi. The only issue for consideration relates to withdrawing of interest allowed under Section 244A of the IT Act, 1961. The facts of the case stated in brief are that while processing the return of income under Section 143(1) interest under Section 244A was allowed on refund due to the assessee. Subsequently, the AO noticed that the assessee had not enclosed a copy of power of attorney in favour of Mr. Jesus M. Barasaoin along with the return of income who signed and verified the same as provided under Section 140(c) of the Act. The assessee on being pointed out by the AO in this regard filed the aforesaid power of attorney on 17th Feb., 2003. The AO issued notice order under Section 154 expressing his intention to withdraw the interest under Section 244A granted on refund from the date of filing of the return to the date of filing of power of attorney. The assessee filed reply to notice un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These six appeals, three filed by the taxpayer and three filed by the Revenue are cross-appeals which are directed against three separate orders passed by the learned CIT(A) dated 31.12.2004, 21.12.2006 and 31.1.2007 for AY 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 respectively. As some common issues are involved therein, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order.2. In ground No. 1, the Revenue has challenged the action of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,25,38,920/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of provision for warranty while computing the total income of the taxpayer under the normal provisions and also in directing the AO to exclude the said provision while computing the book profit Under Section 115JB.3. In its profit and loss account, warranty charges amounting to Rs. 4,04,12,572/-were debited by the taxpayer company. The said amount was inclusive of the warranty expenses actually incurred by the taxpayer...
Tag this Judgment!