Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)11ITD472(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the ITO against the order of the AAC dated 2-10-1982 in the 1977-78 income-tax assessment proceedings.2. For the assessment year 1977-78, previous year ending 31-3-1977, on 5-10-1977, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 29,870. Among the income so declared, the assessee returned income of Rs. 1,047 from the self-occupied flat being Flat No. 71, Chitrakut, Altamount Road, Bombay. The net income from house property at Rs. 1,047 was returned thus:Municipal rateable value as per certificate 4,285Add: One-ninth 476 4,761Less: Municipal taxes at the rate of Rs. 176.58 per month 2,119Less: Half for self-occupation of Rs. 1,800, 2,642 whichever is less--under Section 23(1) 1,321Less: (1) One-sixth repairs 220 1,321 (2) Insurance--Rs. 4.53 per month 54 274Net chargeable income from house property: 1,047 Dealing with this issue, it is seen that the ITO accepted the municipal rateable value at Rs. 4,840 (as disclosed by the assessment order) even tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 7th February, 1992, of CIT(A), Mumbai. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee, who is daughter of Dr. Mohanlal Piramal, was having 81,150 shares of face value of Rs. 10 each in M/s. Piramal Rassayan Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PRL). Other members of Piramal family were also having shares of the said company and the total shares of the company aggregating to 2,70,600 equity shares were owned by the family members and associate concerns as under : Total 2,70,000 ---------- 3. The father of the assessee viz. Dr. Mohanlal Piramal, acting on her behalf and on behalf of the other shareholders, entered into an agreement with M/s. Akshar Investments (P) Ltd. and M/s. Anusandhan Investments (P) Ltd. for sale of 2,70,600 shares owned by the family members and associate concerns on 1st November, 1985 and the consideration for transfer of shares was fixed at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)3SOT121(Mum.)
This is a bunch of six appeals. Three appeals are filed by the assessee and three by revenue. These cross appeals are directed against the orders passed by the CIT(A)-VIII at Mumbai on 12-03-2003, 13-03-2003 and 31-03-2003 respectively. They arise out of the assessments completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The Principal issues involved in these appeals are Whether the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Whether the assessee is eligible for the deduction under section 80HHE of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee is a company incorporated in India on 19-1-1995, under the name and style of M/s. Cybertech Systems & Software Limited (CSSL). The main objects of the assessee company are as follows: "1. To design, develop, alter, make, manufacture, produce, process, assemble, contract, buy, sell, export, import, trade or lease, hire or otherwise deal in computers, computer machinery, spare parts, hardware, software, co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)11TTJ(Mum.)502
1. The appeals filed by both the Department and the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) for asst. yrs.1996-97 and 1997-98. Major issues involved in them are mostly common.We therefore find it convenient to dispose off all of them by a consolidated order. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 62,26,739 being guest house expenses under Section 37(4) of the IT Act. It is submitted that the expenditure of Rs. 62,26,739 includes expenditure on rent, rate, taxes, insurance and depreciation and have been claimed as a deduction under section other than Section 37 of the IT Act and therefore provisions of Section 37(4) are not applicable. It is submitted that it may be so held now.3. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Rs. 62,26,739 being expenditure incurred on guest house. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the afor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)104ITD45(Mum.)
1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 30th Aug., 1991 for asst. yr. 1985-86.2. First ground in the appeal is against the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,398 in respect of debts written off due from CBS Gramaphone & Tapes India Ltd. This ground was not pressed at the time of hearing and hence, the same is dismissed as such.3. Next ground relates to the disallowance of Rs. 19,53,000 being liability for expenses on behalf of Tata Mills Ltd. Similar ground had come up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for asst. yr.1984-85 in ITA Nos. 3624 and 3845/Mum/1991, dt. 21st Jan., 2000. The said ground was allowed by the Tribunal in the aforementioned appellate order to which, one of us (the AM) is a party. Hence, following the earlier order of the Tribunal, this ground of the assessee is allowed.4. Next ground is against not treating the company as a financial company as per Section 40A(8) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). This ground was also a ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. On a difference of opinion between the Members, the following point of difference has been referred by the President, ITAT under Section 255(4) of the IT Act, 1961, for my opinion as Third Member: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessee company is a company in which the public are substantially interested as per Section 2(18) of the Act.2. The assessee, in its return of income as well as by its letter dated 15-7-87, had claimed itself to be a company in which the public are substantially interested and it was also stated that the company was covered Under Section 104(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"].3 The AO noticing the finding of the CIT Under Section 263 for AY 1984-85, and stating that the facts relating to the issue being same as last year held that the company was not a company in which public are not substantially interested as it did not fulfill the conditions laid down Under Section 2(18) of the Act.4. The CIT in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)257
1. This is a bunch of six appeals. Three appeals are filed by the assessee and three by Revenue. These cross-appeals are directed against the orders passed by the CIT(A)-VIII at Mumbai on 12th March, 2003, 13th March, 2003 and 31st March, 2003 respectively. They arise out of the assessments completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. Whether the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act, 1961? Alternatively Whether the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80HHE of the IT Act, 1961? 3. The assessee is a company incorporated in India on 19th Jan., 1995, under the name and style of M/s Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd. (CSSL). The main objects of the assessee-company are as follows: 1. To design, develop, alter, make, manufacture, produce, process, assemble, contract, buy, sell, export, import, trade or lease, hire or otherwise deal in computers, computer machinery, spare parts, hardware, software, computer stationery, peripherals, lin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)87ITD56(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee, for the asst. yr. 1996-97, is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXXIX, Mumbai, dt. 28th Jan., 2000.2. The first ground of appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the decision of the Jt. CIT in treating the development rights as capital assets chargeable to capital gains instead of treating them as stock-in-trade.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee-company is engaged in. the business of manufacturing of insulated copper wire. The AO noticed that the assessee had sold development rights for Rs. 5.95 crores during the asst. yr. 1996-97 in respect of the property which was converted into stock-in-trade in the asst. yr. 1995-96. The facts in regard to the sale of development rights are that the assessee had acquired land some time in 1963 at village Magathana, Dattapada Road, Borivli (E), Mumbai, admeasuring 44,858.60 sq. mts. This land was covered by the provisions of Urban land Ceiling Act, 1976, However, out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)46ITD31(Mum.)
1. The assesses, an individual, resident/non-citizen, is in appeal for the assessment year 1984-85, for which the valuation date shown is March 31, 1984. Assessment has been framed under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The return was filed by the assessee on September 28, 1984, declaring a wealth of Rs. 16,26,200, while the assessment stood framed at Rs. 1,20,42,441. The assessee appealed and the learned first appellate authority, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central-I, Bombay, dismissed the appeal, vide orders of January 3, 1990. The assessee is as yet aggrieved, hence this second appeal and we have heard the parties at length, since the hearing was spread over three days. The addition being agitated upon by the assessee amounts to Rs. 1,01,61,850 and it has the following components : (i) Rs. 93,02,545 being the market value of shares of the Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Ltd. ; (ii) Rs. 2,00,000 representing advances to the two minor sons of the assessee ; (iii) Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!