Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)89ITD235(Delhi)
1. This Special Bench has been constituted under section 255 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to decide the following question arising out of the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 6177/Del/96 for assessment year 1993-94 : "Whether on facts and in law, the gains earned on cancellation of the Foreign Exchange Forward Contract are capital receipt or revenue receipt? If it is capital receipt, whether the same should be reduced from the cost of plant & machinery in connection with which the forward contract was entered into?" 2. At the outset, relevant facts having bearing on the point in issue may briefly be set out. The assessee company is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile tyres, tubes etc. The assessee imported certain plant and machinery for setting up a new tyre manufacturing plant near Baroda in Gujarat state during the year 1991. For financing the project, the assessee borrowed funds in US Dollars and Pound Sterling from US Exim Bank and C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
R.S. Syal, AM The Hon'ble President has constituted this Special Bench to adjudicate the following two questions: "1. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was justified in making transfer pricing adjustment in relation to advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee? 2. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the assessee should have earned a mark up from the Associated Enterprise in respect of AMP expenses alleged to have been incurred for and on behalf of the AE?" 2. The factual matrix of the case is that L.G. Electronics Inc. (hereinafter called as LGK), is a Korean based company, engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and distribution of electronic products and electrical appliances such as television, audio/video equipments, washing machines, refrigerators and air-conditioners etc. Pursuant to the approval of the Govt. of India, conveyed vide letter dated 29-1-1997, LGK was permitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
B.C. Meena, Accountant Member The revenue has filed ITA No.1696/Del/2012 and the assessee has preferred Cross Objection No.249/Del/2012 against this appeal. The assessee has also filed ITA No.2094/Del/2012 on certain issues against the order of CIT (A) dated 31.01.2012. The grounds of appeal taken in these three matters are as under :- ITA No.1696/Del/2012 "1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.6,26,860/- in respect of M/s. Uttaranchal Realtors Pvt. Ltd. out of the total addition of Rs.14,85,009/- made by the Assessing officer in respect of disallowance of commission. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the estimation of profit amounting to Rs.4,17,12,850/- by the Assessing Officer in place of profit declared by the assessee of Rs.3,89,49,700/- on percentage completion method is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
B.C. Meena, Accountant Member 1. The revenue has filed ITA No.1694/Del/2012 and the assessee has preferred Cross Objection No.247/Del/2012 against this appeal. The assessee has also filed ITA No.2092/Del/2012 on certain issues against the order of CIT (A) dated 31.01.2012. The grounds of appeal taken in these three matters are as under:- "1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.89,51,418/- (Rs.47,23,372/- in respect of M/s Omway Builders Pvt. Ltd., Rs.33,27,337/- in respect of M/s Unison Estate Pvt. Ltd., RS.8,72,659/- in respect of M/s Vardhman Associates Pvt. Ltd and Rs.28,050/- in respect of Shree Ganesh Estate) out of the total addition of Rs.95,50,548/- made by the Assessing officer in respect of disallowance of commission by admitting additional evidence in contravention of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
A.D. Jain, Judicial Member This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the ld. CIT, Rohtak, u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the application filed by the assessee for registration. The assessee has taken the following effective grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application of the assessee for grant of registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application of the assessee for registration under Section 12A despite the same being complete and was in compliance to the provisions of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 19.10.2012 passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 144C of the I.T. Act. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred, both on facts and in law in assessing the income of the appellant ` 67,46,180/- as against income of Rs. 20,75,768/- declared by the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs.47,45,416/- as difference in arm's length price determined by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in pursuance of DRP's order and the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble DRP has erred both on facts and in law In d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These appeals by the assessee and revenue emanate out of orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) for the concerned assessment years. Since the issues are connected and the appeals were heard together. These are being consolidated for the sake of convenience by this common order. 2. One common issue raised in the assessee appeal from asstt. years 2001-02 to 2005-06 pertains to addition as income from undisclosed sources representing suppression of sales on account of under valuation of sales of waste. 2.1 In this case the search and seizure activities were carried out at the office of the assessee company. During the course of search proceedings, it came up that a search by Excise Department has been carried out at the factory premises of the assessee company. During the course of search, it was found that the assessee has sold out the waste of @%Rs. 5.5 per kg. whereas the actual sales price was Rs. 20/- per kg. Statement of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, GM (Marketing) was recorded ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)105ITD33(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee involves 14 grounds but they all relate to a single issue and the gist thereof is that the order passed by the AO on 28-2-2003 purporting to be an order passed Under Section 147/143(3)/154 of the Income Tax Act is bad in law, without jurisdiction, time-barred and at any rate the issue sought to be rectified is a debatable one not amenable to rectification Under Section 154.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal is as follows. An assessment was first made for the assessment year 1994-95 on 29-11-1996 Under Section 143(3) of the Act. Later, the assessment was reopened Under Section 147 and the reassessment was completed on 28-3-2002. In this reassessment, the AO observed that the assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee had been allowed deduction Under Section80-I in respect of the Anola unit on dividend income. However, it appears from the reassessment order that the assessee had clarified before the AO in the course of the reassessment pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)109ITD327(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order dated 15-12-2004 of Id. CIT(A), Panchkula for the assessment year 1996-97 on the following grounds: 1. That the appellant denies his liability to be assessed in the status of HUF granted and denies liability to be assessed at total income of Rs. 1,65,100 and accordingly denies his liability to pay tax, interest demanded thereon and Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding the appellant liable to be assessed at the income of Rs. 1,65,100. 2. That having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in framing the impugned assessment upon the appellant even though nothing was chargeable to tax upon him. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(A) has erred to confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in framing the impugned assessment under Section 147 more so when statutory conditions prescribed were not complied wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)834
1. On account of difference between learned Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'F' Bench, New Delhi, this matter with following points of difference has been referred to me Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that there is a valid initiation of the proceedings Under Section 147 in the case of the assessee HUF although no reason to believe were recorded in the case of the assessee HUF nor any notice was served to the assessee HUF? 2. Whether there was valid service of notice Under Section 143(2) on the assessee HUF? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed must be annulled or confirmed so far it relates to the validity of the proceedings initiated Under Section 147 and service of notice on the assessee Under Section 143(2) is concerned? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer erred in framing the assessment in the status of H...
Tag this Judgment!