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 : (2008)113ITD655(Delhi)
1. These appeals of the assessee were decided by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 9th March, 2007 reported as Smt. Krishna Verma v. Asstt. CIT (2007) 109 TTJ (Del) (SB) 193Ed. Thereafter, the assessee filed miscellaneous applications bearing Nos. 327 and 264/Del/2007. The said miscellaneous applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 24th Aug., 2007.2. In the miscellaneous applications filed, the grievance of the assessee was that the Tribunal had decided only one ground of appeal which related to the defect in the notice issued under Section 158BC by giving less than 15 days notice to the assessee to file block return and this Tribunal did not adjudicate upon the other grounds of appeal raised in the above appeals filed by the assessee. Since the Special Bench constituted to decide whole of the appeal and certain other legal grounds involving jurisdictional aspect, which were raised but have not been adjudicated upon, there was a mistake in the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These are the two appeals filed one by the assessee and other filed by the Revenue and both are against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIX, New Delhi dt. 14th July, 2000. There are six grounds in the appeal of the assessee. Grounds 3 to 6 of the assessee's appeal are narrative and the issue that arises from them is whether the CIT(A) would have taken a decision based on the available facts and delete the addition of Rs. 1,61,86,880 instead of setting aside the issue relating to the alleged low GP to the files of the AO with certain guidelines. Further, the CIT(A) is directing the AO to apply the provisions of Section 92 of the IT Act and issuing certain directions in this regard. Finally, other two grounds Nos. 1 and 2 are: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of commission of Rs. 11,07,251 paid to RTP Business Enterprises, Rs. 8,500 paid to JK Traders and Rs. 8,400 paid to Technomed Services on the ground that the appellant failed to bring any evidence...
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)304ITR36(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 20th March, 2006 of learned CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,88,47,816 by disallowing exemption under Section 10(34) claimed by the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that all the conditions prescribed in Section 94(7) (sic).2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of sale, purchase and trading in stock, shares and units of mutual fund. During the relevant assessment year, assessee purchased units of mutual funds, which include units of Tata Index Fund Nifty Plan Option-A and IL & FS Index Fund Nifty Plan. The assessee sold the said units during the relevant assessment year and the loss incurred on sale of such units was set off against the profits on sa...
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 : (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!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)165
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dt. 4th Feb., 2005 of the learned CIT(A), The first and sixth grounds of appeal are general in nature.2. The second ground of appeal is against the decision of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the action of the AO in making an addition of Rs. 1,70,70,000 by disallowing the claim of bad debts. The facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of trading investment, financing and bill discounting. During the year the assessee had sold and purchased units of mutual funds and earned dividend and commission as also profit on trading of shares. The assessee claimed bad debts of Rs. 1,70,70,000, which consisted of debts of Rs. 25,70,000 and Rs. 1,45,00,000 due from Solar Farmachem Ltd. (SFL) are Apollo Steel and Tubes Ltd. (ASTL) respectively. The detailed facts regarding claim of the bad debts of SFL have been discussed by the AO in paras 4.2 and 4.3 of the assessment order dt. 31st March, 2003 which ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)982
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt.25th July, 2005 for the asst. yr. 2002-03.2. In the first ground, the Revenue has assailed the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing deduction under Section 10A of the Act to the assessee in respect of the profits relating to the undertaking of the assessee set up in the Noida Export Processing Zone (in short, NEPZ).In this regard, the factual position is that the assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of development and export of computer software. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed a return of income declaring income of Rs. 4,60,330 which, inter alia, included the claim of exemption under Section 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,47,48,225. In the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31st March, 2005, the AO denied the claim of exemption under Section 10A of the Act. The claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 10A related to the profits derive...
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!