Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. In this appeal filed by the department, the only ground taken is as under : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 19,88,845 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) when it is clear that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income by not disclosing true and fair market value of perquisite enjoyed by him.2. The appeal arises this way. The assessee is an individual deriving income by way of salary as director of a company and income from other sources. In the return filed for the assessment year 1991-92, he declared income of Rs. 54,78,610. The assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 2,67,99,554. Several additions and disallowances were made in the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act before arriving at the total income and included therein was an addition of Rs. 24,27,402 under the head "Income from other sources" with the following narration : Benefits and perqui...
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
Reported in : (2006)5SOT200(Delhi)
These five appeals have been filed by the same assessee against different orders of Learned Commissioner (Appeals) for financial years 1995-96 to 1999-2000. As facts and circumstances and issues pertaining to these appeals are similar, for the sake of convenience, these five appeals were heard and are being decided together.Shri M.S. Sekhon, Learned Chartered Accountant appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Rananjay Singh, Senior Departmental Representative represented the revenue.Before dealing with the individual appeals, we consider it proper to narrate the background and relevant facts relating to this matter which are as under : The Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Defence formulated a scheme in 1979 to raise ex-servicemen coal transport companies. The purpose of the scheme was to have union free captive transport companies in coal subsidiaries of Coal India Limited and to provide resettlement opportunity to ex-servicemen. This scheme laid down the eligibility criteria for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)479
1. The assessee in this appeal is the late S.K. Katyal, who passed away on 1st Sept., 2002. The assessment for the previous year ended on 31st March, 2002 has been framed on his wife Smt. Ranjana Katyal. The assessee filed a return declaring property income, salary from a partnership firm, profit on the sale of shares and income from other sources. While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, the AO noticed that the assessee had received two gifts of Rs. 2,50,000 each from Sudhir Duggal and Satish Kumar Dhingra. In order to verify the genuineness of the donors, the AO issued summons under Section 131 of the Act. The summons were served on Satish Kumar Dhingra, but he did not appear before the AO. The summons issued to Sudhir Duggal could not be served as he was not available at the given addresses. The AO therefore called upon the assessee to produce these persons, but the assessee could not do so. The AO therefore, took the view that the assessee failed to esta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)13ITD762(Delhi)
1. In this revenue appeal, the solitary ground is against the cancellation of penalty of Rs. 2,550 levied by the ITO under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the assessment year 1977-78.2. The respondent filed its return of income on 7-10-1977, though in normal course, it should have been filed on or before 30-6-1977. In the penalty proceeding initiated for late riling, it was explained that the asses-see was a registered firm and that its finally assessed income amounted to Rs. 1,63,840, on which in the status of registered firm, the tax worked out to Rs. 27,583, against which tax deducted at source under Section 194C of the Act was to the tune of Rs. 54,598 and, therefore, there could be no question of levying any penalty which could be in relation to tax levied on assessment. The assessee further pleaded that no extension application was filed, being under the bonafide belief that the tax deducted at source was much more than the tax due. The IT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)81ITD160(Delhi)
1. The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt 29th Dec., 1998, pertaining to asst. yr. 1994-95. The first ground of appeal relates to deduction under Section 80-O of the Act.2. The assessee-company provides professional services in the field of medicines. It is headed by Dr. N.P.S. Chawla and Dr. (Miss) Devjit Kinberlay Chawla, as directors. The assessee-company got the necessary expertise in the matter of providing emergency medical assistance to any person anywhere in India on call. It has on its own panel several qualified doctors who always remain on call, provide necessary medical services wherever required and give professional information to foreign insurers. It is patronised by almost all the insurance companies in the world and some important select embassies of foreign countries, though no formal agreement exist in some of the cases. After providing required treatment they are also provided qualified doctor to escort them back to their dest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)93ITD30(Delhi)
1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to the claim of assessee Under Section 80HHC of Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee is an artist who declared income from sale of her paintings made locally as well as by way of export.Local sale and export sale were shown at Rs. 89,800/- and Rs. 2,43,038/- respectively. The total income from sale of painting was shown at Rs. 1,89,969/- out of which deduction of Rs. 1,38,051/- was claimed Under Section 80HHC of the Act. Since the assessee could not furnish any evidence regarding custom clearance, she was asked to show cause as to why her claim Under Section 80HHC be not rejected. In response to the same, the reply of assessee was as under: a) The assessee had sold paintings by displaying them in exhibition at Amsterdam, Netherlands. This sale qualifies for deduction Under Section 80HHC since Section 80HHC(2)(b) excludes export of only mineral oils and mineral and ores. The items exported by the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)23ITD594(Delhi)
1. In these second appeals the question is whether the Appellate Asstt.Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Dehradun, whose orders dated 30th March, 1985 in respect of assessment year 1982-83 and of 14th August 1985 for the later two years are brought in appeal, rightly rejected the assessee and confirmed the assessments on the point that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xxa) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in respect of value of shares of M/s. Narendra Explosives Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'NEL').2. The value of shareholdings in NEL was stated to be Rs. 7,75,400, Rs. 4,60,000 and Rs. 7,70,500 for the three years respectively but these are not in dispute neither they are relevant for adjudication of the question before us.3. To understand the controversy and further as to whether the primary question which was necessary to adjudicate the issue were considered and decided, a brief history of NEL must be stated, which is that it was i...
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
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!