Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)64ITD279(Delhi)
1. The two appeals by the Revenue relate to the same assessee and hence, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by this common order.2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeals for asst. yr. 1988-89 : "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in cancelling the order under s. 154 which was correctly passed by the AO for cancelling the order under s. 3(4) dt. 7th December, 1987, whereby the assessee was allowed to change its previous year. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing that the order under s. 3(4), dt. 7th December, 1987, will continue to be effective, without appreciating the fact that this would give rise to a situation where the assessee will have no previous year for asst. yr. 1988-89 and this situation would be incongruous with the provisions of s. 3 of the IT Act, 1961, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987." 3. The facts relating to the aforesaid m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Department respectively against the orders of learned CIT(A), XII, New Delhi, dt.11th October, 1994, on various grounds. Since the appeals involve common grounds urged by the assessee and the Department the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Ground Nos. 1 to 6 urged by the assessee relate to initiation of reassessment proceedings under s. 148 when notice was issued on 27th March, 1992, and the reasons for issuing the notice were recorded on 31st March, 1992, non-existence of valid reasons for formulation of belief for initiating reassessment proceedings under s. 148, the application of the provisions of ss. 147 and 148, as amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, and the invocation of the provisions of s. 292-B with reference to notice issued under s. 148 and the finding that reasons had been recorded by the AO before issue of notice.2.1 The brief facts in these cases are that the returns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)78ITD304(Delhi)
1. The Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been pleased to constitute this Special Bench for the disposal of the caplioned appeals filed by the asscssce against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut (CIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 8-3-1991 for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. In the appeal petitions, the asscssee has taken as many as 11/10 identically worded grounds which challenge assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and the validity of the order passed by him under the said section, to set aside the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act.3.2 On 31-3-1986, a "Memorandum of Association" was drawn by 26 parties joining as an Association of persons to exploit the business for retail sale of country liquor in the financial year 1986-87 at shops 1 to 3 situated in Hapur City, Shop No. 4 situated at Pilakhuwa and Shop No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Moradabad dated 30-3-2005 for assessment year 2001-02, in the matter of order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. (1) That on that facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order dated 30-3-2005 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Moradabad (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. (1.1) That the CIT erred on facts and in law in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 holding that the assessment order dated 31-3-2003 passed under Section 143(3)(0 of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue without assuming proper jurisdiction and without satisfying the prerequisite conditions of that section. (1.2) That the CIT erred on facts and in law and exceeded his jurisdiction in excessive allowance of deduction under Section 80HHC without appreciatin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)346
1. This Special Bench is constituted by the Hon'ble President under Section 255(3) for deciding the following question and also for the disposal of appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dt. 13th Nov., 2006: Whether, the assessment made on the AOP is invalid, in the light of the Board's circular dt. 24th Aug., 1966 or is valid in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah and/or statutory amendments of the IT Act 2. Grounds of appeal as raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the finding of the AO that the commission income of Rs. 2,37,55,912 was taxable in the hands of the appellant in the status of AOP and not in the hands of the respective members of the joint venture. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) also erred in fact and in law in confirming the finding of the AO that the tax sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)62ITD78(Delhi)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi, dt. 31st October, 1994, on the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) XXII, New Delhi has erred : (a) in holding that out of total allowance of Rs. 90,169 drawn by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 60,169 was taxable and only a sum of Rs. 30,000 was exempt under s. 10(14)(ii). (b) in not treating the said allowance as exempt under Notification No. 143(E), dt. 21st February, 1989 issued under s. 10(14)(i). 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the learned CIT(A)-XXII has on the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in not treating as exempt even the allowances as were similar to those declared as exempt by the CBDT in their communication No. 133/118-90 TPL, dt. 30th March, 1990 addressed to Air India, Bombay".2. Brief facts in this case are that the assessee filed return of income at Rs. 1,24,280 and the same was processed under s. 143(1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)92ITD324(Delhi)
1. The only ground taken by the assessee in this appeal is whether the loss of Rs. 2,94,832 is a speculative loss as held by the IT authorities. The loss consists of two amounts : 2. Rs. 1,54,420 on account of reduction in the value of the stock of shares held on 31st March, 1997.2. The assessee is a sharebroker and also indulges in purchase and sale of shares on own account. The above two figures relate to the own trading. The AO invoked the Explanation below Section 73 and treated the loss as speculation loss and held that they cannot be set off against the non-speculation profit for the year and can be only carried forward to the subsequent years to be adjusted against the speculation profits for those years. The CIT(A) having confirmed the view taken by the AO, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.3. A pure legal argument was taken before me on behalf of the assessee based on the object for which Explanation below Section 73 was inserted. It was pointed out that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)66ITD305(Delhi)
1. The Assessing Officer has submitted this Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated 30-9-1994 in ITA No. 7641/Delhi/1989. It has been pointed out in the said application that an assessment for assessment year 1983-84 was made by the Assessing Officer on 12-1-1989. This was the first assessment and not a case of re-assessment made under section 147.Since no return was earlier filed by the assessee and no assessment was earlier made, it was not a case of re-opening an assessment made earlier. The Assessing Officer had therefore rightly charged interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has deleted the interest levied under sections 139(8) and 217 by holding that such assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147 cannot be treated as regular assessment. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)19ITD827(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's second appeal against the levy of a penalty of Rs. 9,00,598 for a default under Section 271(1 )(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in filing the return of income for the assessment year 1978-79.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned departmental representative and have perused the material placed before us.3. The return of the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79 was due to be filed on 30-6-1978. It was, however, filed by the assessee on 1-7-1980, i.e., after a delay of 24 months. The assessee had sought extension of time for filing the return vide applications dated 26-6-1978 and 30-8-1978. In the first application it was stated that 'audit of accounts for the accounting year relevant to the above assessment is under finalisation and as such assessable income cannot be determined at this stage'. By this application extension of time up to 30-8-1978 was sought. By the second application moved on 30-8-1978 extension wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1993)44ITD512(Delhi)
1. The assessee in this appeal filed a petition under Section 154 on 9-1-1986 asking, inter alia, for the grant of interest under Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the tax paid in excess. The original assessment order was passed in this case under Section 144 on 26-12-1974 raising a demand of Rs. 5,98,398. This amount was collected by the department in full. This assessment was reopened on 9-3-1977 under Section 146. A fresh assessment was made on 3-9-1979, the tax in respect of which was also collected. As a consequence of the order passed under Section 146 cancelling the exparle assessment made, the assessee claimed that the entire amount collected from him became refundable and on that refund he was also entitled to interest under Section 244( 1A). This claim for the allowance of interest was the one made by making an application under Section 54 on 9-1 -1986. The Income-tax Officer found this application to be in order and allowed interest from the date of paymen...
Tag this Judgment!