Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)1ITD275(Delhi)
1. By this appeal the assessee, a private limited company, carrying on business in the publication of books in the form of novels and pocket books, has raised the objection that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming a disallowance of Rs. 10,000 paid towards medical aid to Shri Gulshan Nanda by the assessee-company. The year involved is 1978-79 for which the relevant accounting period was the year ending 31-3-1978.2. The assessee-company publishes pocket books in Hindi and Urdu. It paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards the medical expenses of one of its writers Shri Gulshan Nanda. The assessee's contention was that the said Shri Nanda was one of the most important writers and was the backbone of the assessee-company. The novels written by Shri Nanda had been selling in lakhs and that because of his books, the assessee had been able to sell novels of other writers as well. According to the assessee the works of Shri Nanda had helped it to develop its business in a big wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)49ITD219(Delhi)
1. The various assessees who are partners in a firm M/s Nand Lal Cold Storage & General Mills have filed these appeals for the various assessment years and the Department have also filed cross appeals for the various assessment years against each of those assessees and the common issue that is involved in these appeals is related to the value that is to be adopted in regard to land & building housing and the cold storage of the firm. Therefore, these appeals have been grouped together and are being disposed of by this composite order.2. Shri K.C. Srivastava appearing for the various assessees submitted that the approved valuer's report was obtained for the valuation dates relevant for assessment years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 respectively.The approved valuer has noted that the cold storage has no open land and that if the properties were to be demolished then the Moradabad Development Authority had placed restrictions on the sale of the land.He had also observed that the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)58ITD177(Delhi)
1. These appeals filed by different assessees are consolidated as facts and issues are common. For the sake of convenience they are disposed of by a single order. While discussing the facts however the reference would be made to a particular assessee Mr. J. Sillard and the decision as taken in the aforesaid case would be applicable to all the cases, the facts of which are identical with those of Mr. J. Sillard.2. The assessee is a non-resident individual employed with Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. (hereinafter called SFID). The latter is a company registered in Liberia. It entered into a contract with Oil & Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter called ONGC) for drilling operations in offshore areas of India within the exclusive economic zone. As per the terms of the agreement with the Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. the assessee was assigned to work in India in a so-called "Computer basis". The agreement starting from November, 1985, was for two years. As per sched...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These are three appeals by the assessee against common order of the CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi pertaining to asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, and the issues have been disposed of by the CIT(A) by a consolidated order, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are also disposed of by this common order.3. The assessee has raised 14 grounds challenging validity of the reopening of assessments under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for these three years and also the view of the CIT(A) that the sales transaction made to his HUF, is sham transaction and thereby confirming the recasting of the P&L a/c and determining the total income at Rs. 12,92,080, Rs. 13,52,290 and Rs. 29,64,200 for the asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 vide assessment order dt. 29th March, 1996, instead of income declared and accepted by intimation under s. 143(1)(a) at Rs. 5,52,80, Rs. 2,34,290 and Rs. 2,30,950 for the asst. yrs. 1993-9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)1SOT91(Delhi)
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of learned CIT (A) dated 12-9-2003 relating to the assessment year 2000-01.2. Ground Nos. 1 to 6 relate to confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 46,29,600 incurred on software and claimed as a revenue expenditure by the CIT (A). The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: "1. That the learned CIT (A)-XII has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of an expenditure of Rs. 46,29,600 incurred on software and claimed as a revenue expenditure.2. That the learned CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the appellant on the acquisition of accounting systems package/module is in the nature of capital expenditure disregarding the aforesaid expenditurehad not been incurred in acquiring any capital asset or further also such an expenditure had not been incurred in capital fielearned 3. That the learned CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in holding t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)201
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue on 10th Sept., 1999, against the order of the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi, dt. 22nd June, 1999, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-97.2. In this appeal, the Revenue has disputed the order of the CIT(A) that the loss claimed by the assessee on purchase and sale of share could not be treated as speculation loss. Facts of the case leading to this appeal briefly are that the assessee-company was a member of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. and carried on the business of share broker. That apart, the assessee also carried on the business of purchase and sale of shares on its own behalf. During the year under consideration, the assessee declared brokerage income of Rs. 32,57,942.At the same time, the assessee disclosed loss in share trading at Rs. 34,73,739 and adjusted the same against share brokerage income and income of the assessee from capital gains and other sources. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)298ITR296(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on 7.10.2002 against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals)-XIV, New Delhi dated 16.7.2002 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order Under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1999-2000.2. First ground in this appeal is directed against deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,19,93,825/- being expenses incurred on repairs and maintenance of lease-hold premises. Facts of the of the case leading to this dispute briefly are that the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs. 5,21,75,080/-. While computing this loss the assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 3,19,93,825/- under the head 'Repairs and maintenance on lease-hold premises'. The assessee claimed deduction of this amount relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned Assessing Officer found that in the accounts of the assessee the expenditure had been capitalized and depreciation of Rs. 51,34...
Tag this Judgment!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
1. These cross-appeals, preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue, are directed against the order of learned CIT (A) dated 2-1-2003 relating to the block period ending on 21-1-1997.2. S/Shri S.K. Garg and Shri Sanjay Kumar appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri Rajnish Kumar CIT DR represented the Revenue.3. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that preliminary legal issue raised in ground No. 2 should be considered first. The learned CIT DR also agreed for considering the preliminary ground first. Hence, we have heard the parties on ground No. 2 which is as under: Because the mandatory requirement of issuing notice under Section 143(2) having not been complied with, even though the appellant had duly filed the return in compliance with notice under Section 158 BC, the block assessment order is liable to be declared as null and void and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in holding that non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue are directed against the order of 30-3-2003 of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2000-01. These appeals which were heard together are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. We first take up the appeal by the assessee in ITA No.3711/Del/2003. In this appeal, the assessee has raised disputes on five different grounds, which have been dealt with in the succeeding paras.2.1 Ground No. 1 of the dispute raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of depreciation on the increased liability of Rs. 3,77,933 in respect of purchase of the asset, on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rate. The assessing officer did not allow the claim after observing that additional liability could arise only in the year when the amount on account of exchange rate fluctuation was actually paid. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance following the decision of the Tribunal on the same i...
Tag this Judgment!