Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)513
1. This appeal by the Revenue for asst. yr. 2001-02 arises out of order of CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi.2. The only issue for consideration relates to treating the period of 41 days spent by the assessee in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and U.K. were for performance of duties outside India. The effective grounds of appeal are reproduced as under: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that a period of 41 days spent by the assessee in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and U.K. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that as per contract the visits to Sri Lanka and Pakistan were on account of work done in those countries where as per record, the assessee had completely failed to submit copies of such contract/ appointment letter before the AO. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the separate tax treatment should be given to on periods and off periods sala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)461
1. This is an appeal by M/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), against the order dt.13th May, 2003 of CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, relating to the financial year 2001-02.2. In this appeal the appellant has challenged order of the CIT(A) confirming the order of the AO, holding the appellant to be in default for not deducting tax at source at the applicable rates resulting in a short-deduction of tax at source and consequently holding the appellant to be in default under the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act and levying interest on tax not deducted at source under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the Act.3. The facts and circumstances under which the appeal arises are as follows. The appellant is a joint venture company between M/s Eli Lilly Inc., Netherlands, and M/s Ranbaxy Ltd., and is engaged in the trading of Pharmaceuticals. It imports these products and undertakes their marketing. The products are sold and marketed throughou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)103ITD403(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of the order of CIT (Appeals)-II, Dehradun, passed on 11-11-2004. The corresponding order of assessment was made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldwani, under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 14-11-2002. The revenue has taken up only one substantive ground of appeal to the effect that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption under Section 11 to the assessee, which was found to be existing not for the charitable purpose, but for the purpose of profit. Therefore, it was prayed that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Income Tax Officer may be restored.2. From the order of the Income Tax Officer, it is seen that the assessee bad shown gross total income of Rs. 2,72,49,129. It was claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,42,99,578 was applied under Section 11 towards the charitable purpose and the balance sum of Rs. 29,49,551 was d...
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 : (1992)40ITD574(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1983 -84, the sole question is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was right in upholding the disallowance of deduction for Rs. 1,98,000 under Section 80GGA of the Income-tax Act in respect of the contribution made by the assessee to M/s Ramakrishna Vivekanand Mission.2. The assessee a Chief Executive of Usha International, a public limited company, of which he was neither a Director nor a shareholder made a donation of Rs. 2 lacs to Ramakrishna Vivekanand Mission by way of two cheques of Rs. 1 lac each drawn on Bank of Baroda on 22-3-1983.These cheques were given to one Mr. Vipin Mehra, an authorised agent of Ramakrishna Vivekanand Mission to collect donations on behalf of the said Mission. The said Vipin Mehra opened a bank account in the name of the Mission without its authority and encashed these cheques in Delhi on 25-3-1983, pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)48ITD465(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by the assessee, one against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and another against levy of penalty under Section 273(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since facts involved in both these appeals are common, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order. First, we shall take up the appeal relating to penalty under Section 271(1)(c).2. The assessee is a HUF, Shri Deepak Singh is karta of HUF. The assessee derives income from business i.e., 67% share in a partnership firm known as Varun Enterprises and income from other sources. The assessee filed original return on 30th June, 1983 declaring net income of Rs. 4,28,190 after taking into consideration deduction under Section 35CCA at Rs. 5,00,000 claimed to have been made to Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission, Gramsewa Parishad, as per Note 4 appended to the statement of assessable income of the assessee. Later on, the assessee revised return of income on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Dehradun dated 13-2-2004. The only issue in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant society was registered under the Societies Registration Act and has been imparting education to children. The appellant, society claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The assessing officer observed that the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) is available to such other educational institutions which were akin to a university in stature, management, regulatory mechanism, standard of education etc. The assessing officer doubted whether a school run by the appellant society was eligible to be covered under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) as an institution. Further, the Assessing officer observed that the main object of the appellant society was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)91ITD133(Delhi)
1. These are eight appeals filed by assessee and department against the orders of CIT (Appeals). Out of eight appeals, five appeals arise from a consolidated order passed by the CIT (A) for the three Financial Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 relevant to Assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01, respectively. The CIT (A) has partly confirmed the orders Under Section 201/201(1A) passed by the Assessing Officer holding the assessee to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source on payments made to non-resident parties for overhaul of its air-crafts, engines and components etc. She however held that such payments to the residents of UK and USA are not chargeable to tax keeping in view the provisions of the DTAAs with those countries. The Assessee is in the appeal before us for all the three years. The Revenue is in appeal for Financial Years 1998-99 to 1999-00 only. As the issues are common in all the three years, these appeals are disposed by a consolidated order.2. The remaining th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)178
1. These cross appeals, arising out of the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) dated 15.11.2006 for A.Y. 2003-04 are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Dr. Rakesh Gupta Advocate, along with Shri Ashwani Taneja FCA and Shri Tarun Kumar Advocate, appeared for the assessee whereas Shri B.Koteshwara Rao Sr. DR represented the revenue. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in: 1 deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made on account of claim of gift from Shri Pankaj Jain by the assessee which was not found genuine by the AO. 2 deleting the addition of Rs. 40,68,450/- and Rs. 22,03,850/-made on account of claim of gift of property from Shri Ashok Jain & Veena Jain respectively which were not found genuine by the AO.4. Before adjudicating these grounds, we consider it proper to narrate the factual background and the orders passed by the departmental authorities in relation to the main issues involved. The facts of the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These two appeals filed both by the Revenue as well by the assessee are consolidated and disposed of by a single order. Appeals containing common issues relate to asst. yr. 1989-90.2. At the outset it may be pointed out that none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice having been sent through registered post.On perusal of the order sheet we further find that the appeals have been fixed right from the year 1996 onwards. Considering the several opportunities allowed, we proceed to dispose of appeals ex parts qua assessee but on merits. The submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and the paper book submitted by the assessee are taken into consideration while disposing of the appeals.3. Taking up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 599/Del/1992 first, we find that the first contention raised relates to disallowance of loss of Rs. 30,000 claimed by the assessee. The facts in brief are that the assessee-company who is having its factory at Okhla Industrial Area Phas...
Tag this Judgment!