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 : (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
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
Reported in : (2001)77ITD548(Mum.)
1. As these two appeals involve common points, they were heard together and are disposed of by this "common order.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act dated 14-12-1990 for the assessment year 1987-88.3. The ground taken is that the CIT erred in taking action under section 263 for the assessment year 1987-88 and in giving direction to withdraw the deduction for the enhanced amount of rent which is disputed by the assessee in the Court.4. The assessment for the assessment year 1987-88 had been completed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 7-9-1988 in which he allowed the claim for the deduction in respect of rent of Rs. 8,35,061 which included the enhanced rent claimed by Bombay Port Trust and Northern Railway from the assessee of Rs. 6,20,728 as per the following details :-- The assessee had been a lessee of certain land belonging to Bombay Port Trust and Northern Railway and it put up some oil storage tanks on...
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 : (2003)87ITD537(Mum.)
1. These two appeals were heard by the Special Bench as directed by the Hon'ble President, Tribunal. The events leading up to the reference may be briefly noticed.2. The appeal of the assessee M/s Mid East Portfolio Management Ltd. before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to the depreciation amounting to Rs. 97.50 lakhs on the air-pollution equipments purchased from Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as "RSEB") and leased backed to it. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench felt that in view of the complexity of the issue and its general importance the question should be considered and decided by a larger Bench. In the course of the arguments, several orders of various Benches of the Tribunal were cited on behalf of the assessee where the view had been taken that depreciation was allowable, On behalf of the Department, the main contention was that the documentation had been so created as to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)96ITD1(Mum.)
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee on 17-12-2003 and 6-4-2004 against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai dated 7-11-2003 and 12-12-2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under section 143(3) for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2000-2001 respectively. These appeals have been referred to us as a Special Bench to decide the following issues: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss incurred by the assessee on purchase and sale of units of Mutual Funds is allowable or not? 2. Whether the provisions of section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be interpreted as retrospective in operation and if so, its effect?" The facts of the case relevant to the questions referred to us, briefly, are that the assessee company filed return of income for assessment year 2001-2002 disclosing total income at Rs. 57,31,610 on 29-10-2001. The assessing officer completed assessment under section 143(3) on 31-3-2003 at t...
Tag this Judgment!