Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)7ITD761(Delhi)
1. The main contention raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the 'fair rental value' of the rent-free accommodation at 1-Tis January Marg, New Delhi, provided to him by his employer cannot exceed its standard rent as fixed by the Additional Rent Controller at Rs. 27,500 per annum and, consequently, its value determined by the authorities below at Rs. 1,10,000 is not sustainable.2. The assessee, Shri Mridu Hari Dalmia, is the executive director of Orissa Cement Ltd., Rajgangpur. Orissa Cement Ltd. had taken on lease one of the three flats at 1-Tis January Marg, New Delhi, from its owner Hari Bros. (P.) Ltd. at a rent of Rs. 2,250 per month. When the assessee came on transfer from Orissa to Delhi on 1-5-1973, he was provided by his employer the said flat free of rent. The assessee was, thus, in occupation of the flat for 11 months in the relevant accounting year ended on 31-3-1974. The assessee, however, declared its perquisite value at Rs. 9,375 only, at the rate of 12 per cent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1983)3ITD438(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a HUF and it owned lands measuring 31 bighas 10 1/3 biswas in the village known as Nangal Dewat in the Union territory of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, paid compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,24,677. The assessee claimed higher compensation in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not known as to the further progress of the litigation in relation to the amount of compensation. However, the ITO while dealing with the assessment of the assessee took into account the amount claimed by the assessee as higher compensation for the purpose of finding out the taxability of the surplus on account of compensation received by the assessee, under the head 'Capital gains'. In the absence of any details as to the cost of the acquisition of the land, the value of the land was estimated at Rs. 1,500 per bigha as on 1-1-1954. The assessee's objections have not been accepted in regard to the assessability of the compensation amount and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)7ITD731(Delhi)
1. The appellant, Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, which came into existence on 1-4-1976 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd. and which took over the business of Central Cottage Industries Association as a running concern, incurred an expenditure of over Rs. 18,83,000 as per particulars below in the accounting year ending on 31-3-1977 relevant to its very first assessment for the year 1977-78 on renovation, improvement, alteration, extension, decoration and furnishing of its business premises situate at 124, Janpath, New Delhi.1. Cost of new furniture 4,65,0001} } 4,69,0004. Expenditure on paints and 3,28,356distemper 1,52,956 }and on renovation of old furniture11. Cost of contingencies, }material and design fees 1,50,000 }13. Cost of miscellaneous }work like fixing of racks, }display of alcoves and }expenditure on false ceilings }(described as expenditure 1,08,930 }on ex...
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 : (1987)20ITD113(Delhi)
1. These eleven appeals are by the same assessee and involve some common questions. They are, therefore, disposed of by this single order. The main dispute involved in these appeals is the validity of assessments for the first eleven years, i.e,. 1964-65 to 1974-75.Returns for the first five years were filed by the assessee on 1-4-1969 and for the later years were initially filed on 6-10-1969, 24-8-1976, 16-9-1971, 29-8-1972, 16-8-1973 and 29-6-1974, respectively. Revised returns for all these years were filed on 26-3-1979. The WTO initially completed the assessments on 31-3-1979 in the status of a HUF in place of an individual in which status the returns were filed. Assessment was quashed by the AAC following the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CWT v. Ridhkaran [1972] 84 ITR 705. According to the ITO, the returns filed on 26-3-1979 became pending since the time limit prescribed by Section 17A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') had not expired. The WTO, therefore, proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)22ITD561(Delhi)
Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's order in pursuance to proceedings under section 147(a) could not be quashed in revision as per the facts of the case.(i) In any case the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment's) order of 27-2-1984 cannot be termed as an order of reassessment and lifting the same could at best revive proceedings initiated under section 147(a) if these could be processed. But in the present case limitation for completion having expired that also could not be done under the garb of section 263. (ii) The order in revision of 27-2-1984 if it is termed as an order in pursuance to proceedings under section 147(a) could not be revised in view of complete prohibition contained in clause (a) of sub-section(2) of section 263, as it existed before 1-10-1984 because the assessee got a vested right on 27-2-1984 of immunity of proceedings under section 263 of the Act. (iii) If the intention and the tenor of the Commissioner(Appeal's)'s order was to seek revision of the ord...
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 : (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 : (1992)40ITD141(Delhi)
1. The assessee, by the present appeal, challenges the order dated February 6, 1986, of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, for the assessment year 1976-77, inter alia, on the following effective and comprehensive ground ; " That the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in upholding the penalty of Rs. 10,214 levied by the learned Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts op the case " 2. In this case, a return declaring nil income was filed on July 28, 1980. It was mentioned in the return that due to disputes amongst the partners, no business was done. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on March 26, 1981, declaring a total income of Rs. 40,400 on an estimate basis. Thereafter, a revised return was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 18,400. Books of account were not produced during the assessment proceedings and only purchase and sale vouchers were produced from which the learne...
Tag this Judgment!