Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)12ITD451(Mum.)
1. These two appeals are filed by A-Z (Industrial) Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and by Shri N.M. Virwani, against the order of acquisition passed by the competent authority under Section 269F(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), dated 24-2-1984 acquiring property consisting of leasehold land measuring 17,199 sq. yards along with structures constructed thereon bearing C.S. No. 1/265, 267, 439, 440, 2/267 and 3/267 of Lower Parel Division,, Bombay.2. The facts relating to these appeals are that by an indenture of lease dated 21-5-1966, Amrut Banaspati Com. Ltd., a company limited under the Companies Act, 1956, leased to Virwani Construction Co., a proprietary concern of Shri N.M. Virwani ('the lessee'), a piece and parcel of vacant land measuring in the aggregate 17,199 sq. yards equivalent to 14,380 sq. metres situated at Fergusson Road, Parel, Bombay, for a period of 98 years from 21-5-1966 subject to payment of a monthly rental of Rs. 35,258. In pursuance of this lease a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1988)25ITD445(Mum.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that the CIT(A), having accepted the assessee's contention that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer on 28-5-1980 was in reality an order under Section 144 of the IT Act, erred in holding that the Income-tax Officer was competent to pass an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the IT Act. The Revenue has objected in the cross-objection to the order of the OIT(A) setting aside the assessment order.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on 2-6-1979 declaring an income of Rs. 6,260. The ITO issued a notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 142(1) on 25-9-1979 for appearance by the assessee on 9-10-1979. The assessee did not appear before the Income-tax Officer in response to this notice. A further similar notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer on 15-11-1979 for appearance on 21-11-1979. As in respect of the firs...
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 : (1988)25ITD479(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee has raised several issues which are considered seriatim below. (i) Swastik Household & Industrial Products, (ii) Sarabhai Research Centre and (iii) Operation Research Group. A company, M/s. Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd., transferred and assigned as a going concern on 30-6-1973 its various industrial undertakings and businesses to its wholly-owned subsidiary. While doing so, with effect from 30-6-1973, that company had transferred and assigned its industrial undertaking of Swastik Oil Mill division as a going concern to the assessee-company. With effect from the close of business of the assessee as on 28-2-1977, the assessee-company which had in the meanwhile set up two divisions, Swastik Research Centre and Operation Research Group, in 1974, transferred the industrial undertakings and businesses of Swastik Household & Industrial Products Division, business of Operation Research Group and the Sarabhai Research Centre to its subsidiary company, M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)59ITD156(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a registered as a company under section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Cos'. Act) has filed the appeals fort the two assessment years 1989-90 & 1990-91 and the cross objection against the appeal filed for the assessment year 1989-90 by the revenue department. The appeals involve common issues and because, the cross objection is against the cross appeal filed by the revenue, these appeals have been group together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The common controversy in these appeals of the assessee are in regard to its claim as charitable institution covered by the provisions of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that its income are therefore exempt from tax under section 11 of the Act. The revenue department had refused to grant the exemption because, the assessee diverted its attention to the activities of construction of buildings known as Trade Centre, Commerce Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)61ITD129(Mum.)
1. These are two cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the revenue directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 24-10-1989 for the assessment year 1986-87. As certain common points are involved, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the appeal of the assessee. "Disallowance under section 37(4) - Guest house Expenses of Rs. 8,83,372. - CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the appellant's contention that the occupancy charges and administration charges of guest house amount to Rs. 8,83,372 are not for the maintenance of guest house as referred in section 37(4)(1) and could not be disallowed under section 37(4)." 3. The assessee claimed expenditure on guest house of Rs. 23,31,317 and this was disallowed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the following expenditure :- equipments, furniture, etc. Rs. 2,11,447 -...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)65ITD73(Mum.)
1. All these appeals by the 20 appellants are against the penalty orders under s. 271(1)(c) and the facts, circumstances and grounds being the same; therefore, all these appeals of 20 appellants which is known as 'Jhunjhunwala Group of cases' are heard and decided by this common order.2. Before the start of the arguments, it was agreed to by the parties that the arguments, counter-arguments and the decisions may be with respect to the decision in the case of Nirmal Kumar P. Jhunjhunwala, in whose case, the loading order has been passed and that decision will govern all these appeals.3. The detailed facts, as are relevant to various submissions made by the parties, through, are mentioned at the relevant place, yet, we would like to extract a brief before we proceed to discuss and decide various solutions. The facts of the case are that as a result of search warrants and subsequent authorisations dt. 19th August, 1986 in the name of 4 individuals-(1) Purshottamdas F. Jhunjhunwala, (2) K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The above captioned two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Asstt. CIT (Investigation), Circle-1(1) Kalyan passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') relating to the block period commencing from 1st April, 1985, to 8th February, 1996. (IT (S&S) A. No. 50/Bom/97 has been filed against the computation sheet dt. 28th February, 1997, while IT (S&S)/Bom/97 is against the speaking order of the even date. Since both the appeals relate to the same block period, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed by this common order.2. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential/shopping projects in the name and style of Vikas Builders.The assessee filed his regular returns of income and assessment was made upto asst. yr. 1995-96. On 8th February, 1996, a search and seizure action under s. 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Department against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30-3-1995 for the assessment year 1991-92. These were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Various grounds are taken by the assessee in ITA No. 5531/Bom./95.Excluding the ancillary grounds, the main grounds are as follows :- "01. (a) The CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 62,500 made by the AC by estimating the professional receipts of the Appellant at Rs. 5,00,000 as against the admitted receipts of Rs. 4,37,500. 02. (a) The First Appellate Authority was not correct in confirming the estimated disallowance of Rs. 20,000 made by the AC out of expenses incurred by the Appellant on salary and bonus of his employees. 03. (a) The CIT (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 1,19,952 out of interest claimed by the Appellant on the ground that the relevant borrowals were made from concerns whose name appear in Annexure A3 seiz...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)78ITD51(Mum.)
1. The assesses, an individual, is carrying on business of construction activities, in his own name and in the names of various partnership firms, where he is a partner. He has also dividend income, interest income, salaries from Private Limited Companies and Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer has pointed out in para 6 of his order that the assessee's construction activities are mainly in Mira Road and Bhayender. It has also been pointed out that the assessee also indulges in advancing loans to various builders and others on a heavy interest.The Assessing Officer has also stated that the seized books indicate that the assessee was receiving huge cash premium in selling flats which is re-invested either in purchase of flats or in giving advances to various parties on interest. The Assessing Officer has also pointed out that the assessee admitted in his statement recorded under section 131 that he is advancing cash loans. The assessee has also admitted in answer to question No. 2, whe...
Tag this Judgment!