Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)50ITD411(Delhi)
1. The assessee. a limited company, has filed this appeal and has raised twelve grounds in this appeal, claiming reliefs under different provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture of electronic typewriters.Amongst the few issues that have been raised in this appeal, there are five important issues. The first issue, relates to the claim of investment allowance on the ground that, it is a small scale industrial undertaking. The second issue, is claim of deduction under Section 80-1, that is dependent on the outcome of the claim of investment allowance. The third issue, is claim of deduction under Section 80HH, that is dependent the profit derived from the industrial undertaking.The fourth issue, of classification as a manufacturing company for levy of tax at a lower rate, is dependent on the outcome of the third issue.The fifth issue is whether, the excise duty actually paid in the accounting year, which is so allowed to be deducte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)75ITD123(Delhi)
1. These five appeals are by the revenue and the five cross objections by the assessee are inter-connected and involve common ground. For the sake of convenience, they are considered together and decided by this consolidated order.2. The common ground in all the five appeals by the revenue is as under:-- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessments on the ground that notices were not validly served and there was no valid assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.3. Assessments for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84 were originally completed under Section 143(3)/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs. 7,211, Rs. 13,570, Rs. 10,240, Rs. 12,690 and Rs. 13,750. Subsequently, the assessments were reopened under Section 147(a) of the Act on the ground that cash credits shown in the name of Smt. Bhagwani Devi and M/s. Jagdamba Finance Corporation were found to be not genuine as the creditors were m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) under s. 154 of the IT Act, dt. 3rd March, 1997, pertaining to the asst. yr. 1989-90. By various grounds raised the assessee has challenged the very validity of the order under s. 154 of the Act and the disallowance of Rs. 2,27,73,422 confirmed by the CIT(A).2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in manufacture of automobile shock absorbers. It maintains its books of accounts on regular basis. Its accounting year was ending on 31st July of each year. Consequent upon the amendment to s. 3 of the IT Act, the assessee adopted its accounting year on the basis of financial year. However, for the purposes of Companies Act, the assessee continued to adopt its account as on 31st July, of each year.3. For the current year the assessee's accounting year is of 20 months i.e., 1st August, 1987, to 31st March, 1989. The return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 5,71,78,485 including the current year's loss ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)174
accepted, amount received under restrictive covenant and for assignment of trade mark, as capital receive The assessee received certain amount under a restrictive covenant of not engaging himself directly or indirectly in the activities carried on by it and the assessing officer accepted the same a capital receipt.Commissioner has nowhere given any finding to the effect that order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous insofar as the same was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, merely because the assessing officer has adopted one view which is not in consonance with the Commissioner's views, the order passed by the assessing officer cannot be said to be erroneous. Further, even on merits, the Commissioner was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263, therefore, the order passed under section 263 is quashed.Commissioner has nowhere given any finding to the effect that order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous insofar as the same was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)702
1. These are cross-appeals relating to the asst. yr. 1995-96. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of portable generator sets, general purpose engines and water pumps. We are concerned with the previous year ended 31st March, 1995, for which an assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act was made by order dt.12th March, 1998.2. Additional ground: At the time of the hearing, the assessee filed an additional ground and sought admission of the same which is as follows: That on the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 14,87,885 being non-refundable tooling advance paid to the vendors in the relevant previous year and would have been allowed revenue deduction.It is common ground that the assessee did not raise this point either before the CIT(A) or in the memorandum of appeal originally filed before the Tribunal. This should not be an impediment to admitting the same as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Orissa Cement Ltd. v.CIT (2001) 169 CTR (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)1113ITD624(Delhi)
1. The appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 28th Nov., 1997 pertaining to asst. yr. 1994-95.2. In the sole ground, the Revenue has challenged the direction of the CIT(A) to allow deduction under Section 80-I of the Act despite the fact that the product being manufactured by the assessee came under the XIth Schedule of the Act.2A. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the production and manufacture of photo colour films. When the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-I/80-IA of the Act the same was denied by the AO on the ground that the product manufactured/produced by the assessee fell in XIth Schedule of the Act.On appeal the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that in asst. yr. 1990-91 he has allowed the claim of the assessee.This finding of the CIT(A) has been challenged before us. While learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO the learned Counsel supported ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Delhi)501
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (A), dt. 30th July, 2004 for the asst. yr. 2001-02, in the matter of deletion of penalty of Rs. 11,05,712 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the of the IT Act, 1961. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred in (i) deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 11,05,712 on the ground that for disallowance of certain expenses or addition to the declared taxable income, it cannot be concluded that the assessee has concealed the true particulars of its income. (ii) relying upon the judgment in the case of CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co. relating to asst. Yr. 1970-71 as the same was not applicable after amendment to Section 271(1)(c) by the Direct-tax Laws (Amendment) Act of 1975.3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss at Rs. 78,28,4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)291ITR16(Delhi)
1. Income-tax Appeal Nos. 3458 and 3459/Del/2001 are the appeals by the Revenue against the order dt. 30th May, 2001 of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, relating to the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. The assessee has filed CO Nos. 143 and 144/Del/2005 against the aforesaid orders of the CIT(A).2. The facts and circumstances under which these appeals as well as cross-objections arise are as follows: The assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of execution of civil construction works for U.P. State Government and Rajasthan State Government. For asst. yr. 1997-98, a return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 1,41,930. The return was accompanied by audited trading account, P&L a/c, balance sheet and report of auditor. During the previous year the assessee derived receipts from three sources, namely, contract receipts, hire charges and interest. Contract receipts were shown in the trading account and other receipts were shown in P&L a/c. Gros...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)924
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi dt. 21st Dec, 2006. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in denying the set-off of loss of Rs. 2,46,93,358 pertaining to the unit of the appellant eligible for exemption under Section 10A of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), against profits of the other units of the appellant for the relevant year.2. During the relevant assessment year, the applicant incurred a loss of Rs. 2,46,93,358 in the amorphous division, which was otherwise eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The applicant claimed set-off of the aforesaid loss against the profits of the other units. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of the assessee, on the ground that the declaration as required under Section 10A(8) of the Act for not claiming the benefit of Section 10A of the Act had not been filed by the assessee. The actio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)775
The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. 135/05-06/GGN dt. 2nd May, 2006 on 4 grounds of appeal mainly raising the issue whether the assessee is entitled to the refund of Rs. 4 lakhs together with interest paid in pursuant to the directions of Tribunal issued during the stay proceedings and due to the final order of Tribunal in which the assessment framed by the AO in the treatment of Rohtas (HUF) has been held to be null and void.1. Briefly stated the facts relating to the issue are that the an assessment Under Section 147 was framed by the AO vide order dt. 14th March, 2002 at an income of Rs. 70,47,356, against which an appeal was preferred by the assessee before Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dt. 29th Sept., 2004 annulled the assessment framed against the assessee, Shri Rohtas, in the status of Rohtas (HUF). Thereafter, the assessee moved an application Under Section 154 before the AO alleging therein that the effect of the said ord...
Tag this Judgment!