Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)61ITD213(Delhi)
1. These three appeals by the revenue for assessment years 1982-83, 1985-86 and 1986-87 are directed against a consolidated order passed by the DCIT(A), Rohtak, for four years, namely, assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1985-86 and 1986-87.2.1 The Assessing Officer passed a consolidated order under section 154 dated 26-12-1991/20-1-1992 for assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1988-89. The Assessing Officer has observed in the said order under section 154 that the assessee purchased plant and machinery for business purposes. The machinery so purchased was leased out to M/s. Oswal Electricals, Faridabad w.e.f.1-4-1987. The assessee derived income from lease @ Rs. 3,000 p.m. (the correct amount of rent is Rs. 30,000 p.m. as per lease agreement dated 1st April, 1987 placed at pages 26 and 27 of the paper book). Since the plant and machinery, on which investment allowance had been allowed was transferred before the expiry of 8 years, from the end of the previou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These are the appeals preferred by the assessees against the common order of the CIT(A) for the financial years 1989-90 to 1994-95 confirming the penalties levied under s. 271C of the IT Act, 1961.Since the facts are common, these appeals have been heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.2. The assessee involved have raised the common grounds and the same are reproduced hereunder : "1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that the appellant company was liable to deduct tax at source under the IT Act (of India) from salary paid outside India from the funds available outside India. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that the alleged default of not deducting the tax at source was without reasonable cause. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)673
1. These cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue, are preferred against the order of the CIT(A) pertaining to the asst. yr. 1994-95. Since these appeals were heard together, these are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. This is an appeal of the assessee through which the assessee has assailed the order of CIT(A) on various grounds which are as under : "1. The CIT(A), New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,135 under Rule 6D of the IT Rules. 2. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in rejecting the appellant's claim for deduction of Rs. 3,65,15,643 under Section 43B on account of sales-tax deferral granted by the Maharashtra Government pursuant to the directions of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). 3. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in not holding that Maharashtra Government had granted deferral of outstanding sales-tax an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly dated 13-10-2005 for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-03, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. (1) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly has erred in law and on the facts of the case in quashing the notices issued under Section 148 reiving upon the findings of Bombay High Court in 77 ITR 995. (2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case while emphasizing on the word information used in pre-amended subsection (b) of Section 147 which is not applicable with effect from 1-4-1989. (3) That the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), A Bareilly being erroneous may be cancelled and the order of assessing officer be restored. (4) Any other ground of appeal which may be taken at the time of hearing.3. Rival contentions have been heard and records...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)721
1. This appeal by the assessee has been filed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi, dt. 31st May, 2005.The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of leasing and hire purchase of equipment, financing, bill discounting, loan placement etc. The first ground of appeal is reproduced below: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the AO's act of disallowing appellant's claim of bad debts of Rs. 80,68,668 out of total write off of Rs. 85,69,350. The disallowance so upheld is in total disregard to the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) read with the provisions of section. [Section 36(2)] 2. The assessee claimed bad debts of Rs. 85,69,350. The AO observed that the amounts were written off as bad debt during the pendency of suits Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The assessee maintained that the claim was admissible because: (i) it was not necessary for the assessee to take legal action against the defaulters ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Delhi)289
1. All these appeals are filed by the Revenue and these are directed against the consolidated order of CIT(A) dt. 18th May, 2006 for asst.yrs. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The only issue raised by the Revenue in these appeals is regarding levy of interest under Section 234D of IT Act, 1961. Grounds raised for all the years are identical except difference in figures. For the sake of convenience grounds of appeal for asst. yr. 1998-99 is reproduced below: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest of Rs. 1,04,773 charged under Section 234D of the Act.2. As there was divergence of opinions so as to chargeability of interest under Section 234D, the matter was referred to Hon'ble President for constitution of Special Bench on this issue. Hon'ble President vide his order dt. 11th Oct., 2007 has constituted this Special Bench to answer the following question and also to dispose of the present appeals. Whether, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)51ITD447(Delhi)
1. 1 to 34 [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 35. We now come to the various grounds raised by the assessee with reference to the computation of "book profit" under Section 115J. It would not be out of context to state that these grounds were vehemently argued by both the sides with reference to the relevant provisions of law, the facts on record and the decision cited at the bar by both of them.36. The first issue pertains to the deduction on account of depreciation in working out the book profit. The assessee-company determined the book profit at a loss of Rs. 6,11,56,136 by charging depreciation of Rs. 46,42,18,709 which had been worked out under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The books of accounts however, revealed a profit of Rs. 34,00,83,889 after depreciation had been deducted in accordance with the "straight-line method". To appreciate the controversy in better perspective, it would be necessary to reproduce the following figures appearing i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)65ITD362(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the appellant company are directed against the consolidated order passed by the CIT(A) on 16th March, 1990 for asst.yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 and the consolidated order dt. 1st Feb., 1991 for asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89. All these appeals involve consideration of the following identical grounds raised in these appeals : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) legally erred in upholding that the income from minimum guaranteed business profits under licence was assessable as income under the head "income from other sources" and not "income from business and profession". 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A), legally erred in rejecting the assessee's claim of depreciation on hotel building on considering the same as 'plant'. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, delete or modify any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of appeal." 2. The brief facts neces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)95ITD209(Delhi)
These four appeals filed by the four assessees are directed against four separate orders passed by learned CIT, Bareilly under section 263 on 6-6-2000 and since common issues are involved therein, the same are being disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that all the four assessees are Directors and principal promoter shareholders of M/s. Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. The same company was earlier engaged in the business of doing bottling work for M/s. Hindustan CocaCola North West Private Limited (HCC in short) in its unit called as M/s. Mansarovar Bottling Co. During the course of said business, all the four assessees being the Directors of M/s.Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. acquired confidential information regarding the bottling and distrilbution of trade mark beverages of Coca-Cola company. M/s. Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. suffered heavy losses and as per the BIFR order, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)770
1. These four appeals filed by the four assessees are directed against four separate orders passed by learned CIT, Bareilly Under Section 263 on 6/6/2000 and since common issues are involved therein, the same are being disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that all the four assessees are Directors and principal promoter shareholders of M/s Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. The same company was earlier engaged in the business of doing bottling work for M/s Hindustan Coca-Cola North West Private Limited ('HCC' in short) in it's unit called as M/s Mansarovar Bottling Co. During the course of said business, all the four assessees being the Directors of M/s Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. acquired confidential information regarding the bottling and distribution of trade mark beverages of Coca-Cola company.M/s Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. suffered heavy losses and as per the BIFR ord...
Tag this Judgment!