Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These are two appeals of the Revenue directed against separate orders of appeal of CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi dt. 13th July, 1990, and 7th August, 1991, relating to asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively and these appeals since involve similar facts and identical points. So these are consolidated and disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in : (a) directing the AO to allow assessee-company's claim of investment allowance on plant and machinery amounting to Rs. 3,57,69,003 by ignoring the material fact that the assessee-company is engaged in hotel business which is not an industrial undertaking and as such is not eligible for such an allowance; and (b) directing the AO not to include a sum of Rs. 3,92,758 paid by the assessee-company as commission to travel agents for the purposes of working out the disallowance under s. 37(3A) of the IT Act, 1961." 3. Similarly, in ITA No. 7415 (Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) pertaining to the asst. yr. 1992-93.2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. C. Mehta, at the outset challenged the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that since the appeal for the same assessment year has been dismissed as withdrawn in view of the certificate issued by the CIT under s. 90(2) of r/w s. 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, in respect of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, (KVSS), the Revenue's appeal should also be deemed to have been withdrawn.3.The learned Departmental Representative, Shri Brijesh Gupta, on the other hand, has opposed the above preliminary objection on the ground that both the appeals are distinct as these are filed on different grounds and the assessee has availed the benefit of KVSS in respect of those issues which were raised in its appeal and not with regard to the issues raised in the Revenue's appeal. As such, the Revenue's appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2002)83ITD398(Hyd.)
1. By these stay petitions, the assessee seeks extension of the stay of collection of tax already granted by various orders of this Tribunal details of which are given below, pending disposal of the appeals 2. The learned representative for the assessee-petitioner submitted that : the stay granted by the Tribunal for the above years is still in force. However, the AO by a letter dt. 25th Jan., 2002, required the assessee to pay the entire tax demand for the above years in view of the amended provisions of Sub-section (2A) of Section 254 of the IT Act introduced by the Finance Act, 2001, w.e.f. 1st June, 2001. The last stay order passed by this Tribunal say, for the asst. yr. 1997-98 is on 15th June, 2001. In view of the amendment to Section 254(2A), the stay granted by the Tribunal has ceased to be in operation and the demand has become due to be payable. Besides, the AO has further warned that unless necessary arrangements are made to pay off the total demand in arrears, he would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2008)218CTR(Uttranchal)7; [2009]313ITR140(Uttaranchal); [2009]178TAXMAN453(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, by the Revenue, is directed against the order dt. 7th April, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi (hereinafter referred as Tribunal'), in IT Appeal No. 3506/Del/2003, relating to asst. yr. 1998-99, whereby the appeal of the respondent/assessee, was partly allowed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that assessment in the present case of the respondent/assessee M/s Desh Rakshak Aushdhalaya Ltd., Kankhal, Haridwar, was completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, on 16th Oct., 2000, in which the AO has made addition of Rs. 2,98,924 as per the provisions of Section 2(24) of the Act, on account of delay in depositing said amount in relation to the employees contribution towards PF/EPF by the employer into the credit of Central Government account, and denied deduction under Section 43B of the Act. Respondent/assessee preferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(1)JCR572(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 17.8.2006 passed by respondent No. 4 - Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad initiating a suo motu revision proceeding under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for revising the revised assessment orders passed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1981-82 to 1997-98 and also for quashing the final order dated 8.5.2007 passed in the said suo motu revision proceedings whereby he has quashed the revised/fresh assessment order dated 24.5.2007 passed under the Central Sales Tax Act as also Bihar Sales Tax Act and further for a direction upon the respondent No. 4 to refund the excess payment of Hales tax along with statutory interest.2. The petitioner's cases, inter alia, are as follows:Petitioner, a Private Limited Company running a hard coke plant at Govindpur, Dhanbad, is a manufacturer and seller of hard coke and is a dealer under the Bihar Fina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1955Ori106; 21(1955)CLT555
Misra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Actby the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, MadrasBench 'B', at the instance of the assessee, the RajaBahadur of Khallikote. The question referred tous is as follows :'Whether the reassessment of the income for the assessment year 1939-40 by invoking the provisions of Section 34 was correct.' 2. The assessee is the zamindar of Khallikote and derive his income, among other sources, from forests. For the assessment year 1939-40, the income-tax officer made an assessment under Section 23(3); the accounting year for the relevant period endedon 31-3-39. In the original assessment under Section 23 (3) of the Act, the Income-tax Officer did not take the income from forests into account as till then the revenue authorities were under the impression that such income was agricultural income and as such was not assessable to income-tax. On 17-4-1941, the Patna High Court held in the case of-- 'the Province of Bihar v. Pratap Udai Nath S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994]208ITR649(SC); JT1994(3)SC116; 1994(1)SCALE840; 1994Supp(2)SCC296; [1994]2SCR247
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.Civil Appeal Nos. 493-98 of 19841. A common question arises in this hatch of appeals. It pertains to the interpretation of Section, 40(a)(v) as well as Section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act. Upto March 31, 1972, Section 40(a)(v) was in force arid from April 1, 1972, Section 40A(5) came into force in its place. Both the provisions were substantially similar. Indeed, Section 40(a)(v) was preceded by Section 40(c)(iii) which was, of course, applicable only to companies and not to other assessees.2. Section 40(c)(iii) introduced by Finance Act, 1973 with effect from April 1, 1963, as substituted by Finance Act, 1964, read as follows:40 Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession-(c) in the case of any company(iii) any expenditure incurred after the 29th day of February, 1964 which results di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3942; (2003)179CTR(SC)362; (2003)2MLJ65(SC); (2003)3SCC57; [2002]SUPP5SCR387
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. A question of seminal importance relating to the period for whichinterest in terms of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') can be levied when the Settlement Commission (in short 'theCommission') passes an order under Section 245D of the Act, is the subject matter of adjudication in these appeals. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Special Bench of the Commission (in Gulraj Engineering Construction Co. In re and Ors. : [1995]215ITR1(Bom) which dealt with five situations where such questions may arise. The situations according to the Special Bench are as follows:'(i) The income is determined under Section 143(1)but no regular assessment under Section 143(3) or 144is made with or without there being a notice under Section 143(2) and/or Section 142(1).(ii) A regular assessment is made under Section143(3) or Section 144 in addition to the determination of the income under Section 143(1) and an appeal ispending before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj1606; 2006[4]STR545; [2007]6STT385
1. By way of instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner S.B. Construction Company a partnership Firm engaged in construction and maintenance activities has challenged the order of the 3rd respondent Superintendent, Central Excise, Sri Ganganagar dated 25th April, 2005 to get the registration for the services of 'Cargo Handling Service' and pay the service tax due thereon. The petitioner has been asked to give the details of amount received month-wise from 4th respondent Chief Engineer, Suratgarh Thermal Power Station, Suratgarh on the said services w.e.f. 16-8-2002 onwards so that the service tax liability of past period can be ascertained accordingly.2. The necessary facts for deciding the controversy involved in the instant petition are that the petitioner was awarded a contract of unloading of coal through W.T. System, stacking/reclaiming of coal to S/R System and feeding of coal to boiler bunkers through conveyor system by order dated 29th M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Mad)176; [1986]160ITR27(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The assessee in this reference has admittedly received a sum of Rs. 38,079 when he won the jackpot at the horse race on February 27, 1972. The amount was received by cheque and he made an try in his account books to the effect that a cheque for Rs. 38,079 was received from the Madras Race Club as 'prize on hitting jackpot, vide ticket J. No. 26541 and Certificate No. 798 dated March 16, 1972'. For the assessment year 1973-74 for which the previous year of the assessee ended on November 5, 1972, because the assessee had Deepavali account year, the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 37,079, though the assessee claimed that this amount was exempt as the receipt fell within the financial year 1971-72. The figure Rs. 37,079 was arrived at after allowing exemption for a sum of Rs. 1,000 out of Rs. 38,079. 2. The assessee went in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who deleted the addition and accepted the case of the assessee that the winnings from th...
Tag this Judgment!