Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)92TTJ(Delhi)1087
1. This first appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Asstt. CIT, Circle-I, Saharanpur, dt. 31st Oct., 1996, for (block) asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1996-97 upto the period 13th Oct., 1995, passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 158BC of the IT Act.2. Since large number of issues are involved in this appeal, therefore, it is necessary to reproduce all the grounds of appeal for the sake of convenience upon which this appeal is filed challenging the impugned assessment order. The grounds of appeal are as follows : "1. That the learned AO erred in estimating the concealed income of the appellant for the block period from asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1996-97 (upto the period 13th Oct., 1995) at Rs. 15,71,316 (Fifteen lakhs seventy one thousand three hundred sixteen) ignoring or wrongly rejecting the explanation given by the appellant and/or by resorting to conjectures and surmises. 2. That learned AO erred in estimating additional income in the assessment order at various places on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)27ITD118(Delhi)
1. These 51 second appeals against a similar number of orders all dated 11th March, 1987, passed by the CIT (Appeals), Meerut, hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A), require adjudication on an interesting issue relating to the taxability of salary income received in relation to the period ending 31-3-1983, i.e., for the assessment year 1983-84. The assessments in all the cases were raised on M/s. Dixilyn Field International Drilling Co. (shortly referred to as DFIDCO) as agent of its employees. Shri N.A. Palkhivala, Senior Advocate, who appeared with Shri I.P. Gupta, Advocate and Shri A.P. Srivastava, Senior Departmental Representative suggested that the facts in the case of Mr. Paul Weigel being typical of all other assessees decision in his case can be safely made the basis for deciding all the appeals. Accepting the suggestion, which we find convenient and expedient, we shall be narrating the facts in the case of the said assessee only.2. Mr. Paul Weigel was an employee of DFIDCO, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)40ITD152(Delhi)
1. Appellant-assessee, by the present appeal, challenges order dated January 7, 1986 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1981-82 on various grounds. First two grounds are in the following manner : " 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi, has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,460 being one per cent, of the rebate out of the rebate allowed on sales to Messrs. Navin Bharat Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. at the rate of two per cent, considering it to be adequate without any justification. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi, has erred in observing that Messrs. Navin Bharat Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. was allowed only five per cent, discount by the firm in earlier years, ignoring the facts and the material on record that Messrs. Navin Bharat Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. has been paid bill discount at five per cent, and in addition to bill discount, a rebate on sales has been allowed e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)69ITD75(Delhi)
1. Under s. 254(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), the President of the Tribunal has constituted the present Bench and referred the following question : "Whether the sum of Rs. 27,00,000 received by the appellant from his landlord for surrender of tenancy rights is exigible to tax ?" 2. The factual matrix of the case : The assessee is a Chartered Accountant. He was in possession of bungalow No. 3, Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi, which was used for office-cum-residential purposes.Originally the bungalow was leased under a lease deed dt. 11th June, 1956. The duration of the lease was 11 months and 29 days. The lessee was restrained from sub-letting the bungalow or any part thereof.3. On expiry of the said period of lease, the landlord sought eviction of the appellant vide Misc. suit No. 57 of 1957 before the Sub-Judge.Vide order dt. 27th December, 1960, the suit of eviction was dismissed.It was held by the Sub-Judge that the tenancy was not for 11 months and 29 day...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)83ITD11(Delhi)
1. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The disputes arising out of these appeals relate to demands raised against the assessee under Section 201(1) of IT Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'), pertaining to financial years 1994-95 to 1998-99. The issue arising out of these appeals is whether the assessee was liable and failed to deduct the tax at source under Section 195 of the Act from the various payments made by the assessee to various non-resident parties and consequently, whether the assessee could be considered as assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) of the Act.2. First, we take up the payments made by assessee to International Leasing Finance Corporation (in short ILFC). The assessee is a company incorporated in India, which is engaged in the business of running aircrafts for carriage of passengers. Some of the aircrafts, run by it, are owned by it whereas the others are taken by it on lease from various non-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)82ITD808(Delhi)
1. These appeals are directed against separate orders of the CIT (A) and having been heard together are decided by a common order.2. In the appeal for asst. yr. 1996-97 the assessee has raised 7 grounds, but at the time of hearing a solitary issue covering grounds 2 to 5 (reproduced hereinafter) was argued and the other grounds were not pressed. Such grounds would; therefore, stand rejected. "2. That while confirming the assessment, the learned joint CIT has erred in sustaining the disallowance of the claim of depreciation aggregating to Rs. 92,00,625. The learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee was the owner of the plant leased out by it and had been utilised by it for the purpose of its business. The finding of the learned CIT(A) that the transaction was a finance transaction, is based on complete misconception of facts 3. That further, the finding of the learned CIT (A) that M/s KPCL was in red and was badly in need of resources to run its business, by itself was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee against the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad, passed in Appeal Nos.61/2003-04/GZB and 88/2004-05/GZB dated 4-1-2005 were heard together and are being disposed of by this single order for the sake of convenience as many issues involved therein are identical.2. In assessment year 2000-01, the assessee has taken following effective grounds: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 12,361 being club subscription and club expenses treating these to be in the nature of non-business expenditure ignoring the fact that these expenses are incidental to the business activities of the company and are, therefore, covered under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. (a) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in rejecting the claim of Rs. 1,38,23,156 being the interest on capital borrowed for acquiring the fixed asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. As there is a difference of opinion, the matter is being referred to the Hon'ble President of the I.T.A.T with a request that the following question may be referred to a Third Member or pass such order as the Hon'bie President may kindiy decide: Whether on me facts and circumstances of the case, the product (photographic apparatus and goods) being manufactured by the assessee did not come under 11th Scheduie of the Act and therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction Under/Section 801/801A of the Act.1. The appeal has been directed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 28.11.97 pertaining to assessment year 94-95.In the sole ground, the revenue has challenged the direction of the CIT(A) to allow deduction Under Section 80-1 of the Act despite the fact that the product being manufactured by the assessee came under the XI^th Schedule of the Act.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the production and manufacture of photo co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)23ITD464(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the asscssce-company arc directed against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) upholding imposition of penalties under Section 271(I)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1956-57 to 1963-64. The basic facts relating to all these appeals are common and common arguments have been advanced before us in respect of all of them. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of these appeals by this common order.2. The assessee firm came into existence in 1955 with four partners, namely, Shri K.C. Agarwal, Shri J.P. Agarwal, Shri H.K. Agarwal and Shri B.K. Agarwal. On 13-1-1958 one more partner Shri D.N. Agarwal joined this firm but he retired on 28-8-1961. On 19-8-1969 two of the partners Shri H.K. Agarwal and Shri B.K. Agarwal retired and two partners constituted the firm which continued the business up to 21-5-1971 when Shri J.P. Agarwal died. On his death the firm was dissolved. Thus these are penalty orders passed on a dissolved firm. In fact the assessments on the basis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1991)36ITD152(Delhi)
1 to 3. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues].4. Ground No. 2(a) relates to disallowance of Rs. 18,208 out of sales promotion expenses. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that out of the total expenditure of Rs. 26,335, assessing officer has made a disallowance of Rs. 18,208 under the garb of Section 37(2A). The learned counsel pointed out that though the addition of Rs. 26,335 had separately been made, this injustice has been set right by the first appellate authority. In respect of disallowance of Rs. 18.-208 the learned counsel contended that most of the expenditure related to purchase of sweets etc. provided to the customers on Diwali and other occasions. The learned counsel accordingly contended that the expenditure related to the business and thus was allowable as a deduction in computing the income from business. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of IT AT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Sandika (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1982] 13 TTJ 3...
Tag this Judgment!