Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)528
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. DEL/CIT-A2/2002-03/161 dt. 7th March, 2003 on as many as 16 grounds.2. Ground Nos. 1 and 17 are general in nature hence no adjudication is required from our side.3. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 relating to various legal issues as stated in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee were not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee before us; accordingly, the same are rejected as not pressed.4. Ground No. 10 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 93,546 on account of commission earned by the assessee and ground No. 1 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 25,45.575 by the CIT(A) out of the total addition of Rs. 28,28,902 made by the AO as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Ground No. 12 relates to upholding of the addition of Rs. 9,75,000 by the CIT(A) relating to share application money and ground No. 13 pertains to confirmation of addition of Rs...
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)93ITD520(Delhi)
1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to the applicability of the provisions of Section 44BB of Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act).2. Briefly stated the facts are these: The assessee is a foreign company having its head office in USA. During the financial year 1995-96, it had received a contract from Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) for laying of pipelines through horizontal directional drilling across the Chambal and the Yamuna river. The total contractual receipts in the year under consideration amounted to Rs. 12,98,22,970/-. By invoking the provisions of Section 44BB, the assessee offered the net income at Rs. 1,29,82,297/- by applying the presumptive rate of 10% of the total receipts. The assessee was asked to explain as to how the provisions of Section 44BB were applicable to the present case. The explanation of the assessee before the AO was (i) that the pipelines laid by the assessee was to be used for the purpose of transportation of natural gas which falls within the me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. Both these appeals are filed by the assessee. They are directed against consolidated order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-11-2003 in respect of assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03. The only grievance of the assessee in the present appeals is regarding reduction of depreciation and expenses incurred for repair and maintenance of Wind Electric Generators (WEG) from the eligible profit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA. The assessee is earning income from electricity generated from WEG and claimed deduction under Section 80-1A on such income without deducting any expenditure there from contending that these WEGs were primarily installed for demonstration and demonstrative activity being in the nature of business promotion was the activity relating to sale of WEG and expenses incurred thereon should be treated to be expenses relating to sale of WEG and it cannot be related to the electricity generation activity. According to the assessee no expenditure whatsoever was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)21ITD214(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi, dated 26-2-1985 relating to the assessment year 1981-82. In the first ground the grievance projected by the assessee is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine. This grievance is based upon very interesting set of facts, which must be recorded in order to get full appreciation of the case of the assessee.2. One, Mr. David Jude., Shrieves was an employee of Redifon Simulation Ltd., United Kingdom. The said employer deputed him as resident site engineer to work at Indian Naval Dockyard at Bombay from 11-5-1980 to 31-3-1981. The contract of this service of the foreign technician was approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi vide their letter dated 3-3-1981 in terms of Section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He performed stipulated services and received the recompense therefor. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These two appeals, one filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, passed in Appeal No. 18/03-04, dated 27-10-2003 and the other filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, passed in Appeal No.12/02-03, dated 31-10-2002 were heard together and are being disposed off by this single order for the sake of convenience because the issue involved in both the appeals i.e. whether the assessee is entitled to claim expenditure aggregating to Rs. 5,20,22,092 in assessment year 2000-01 and Rs. 5,31,22,080 in assessment year 1999-2000 is allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is identical.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed a return of income for assessment year 2000-01 declaring loss of Rs. 5,20,22,092 and a loss of Rs. 5,31,22,080 in assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee company is engaged in the business of the primary purpose grass roots exploration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)12ITD137(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1977-78. In the year of account, the assessee received retrenchment compensation to the extent of Rs. 21,908.20. The assessee claimed that in view of Section 10(705) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), it was exempt from tax. The assessee joined the National Mineral Development Corporation as consultant on 12-6-1970 on contract for a period of one year as per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 9-7-1970. The contract was terminated before the expiry of the period of contract. The assessee took the matter in the Court of law. The Court appointed an arbitrator who gave the award on 11-3-1976, according to which the assessee was entitled to claim Rs. 21,908.20 only from the National Mineral Development Corporation. This amount was received by the assessee on 12-5-1976. The ITO did not allow the exemption. According to him, the assessee was not a workman within the meaning of Section 10(10B). The learned AAC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the CWT(A), dt. 4th March, 1994, for the asst. yr. 1986-87, for which the valuation date was 31st March, 1986.2. The assessee is a private limited company. The return of wealth was originally filed on 25th March, 1988, in response to the notice under s. 17 served on 15th Jan., 1988, declaring net wealth of Rs. 61,85,100.The return was subsequently revised on 31st July, 1988, showing net wealth at Rs. 6,32,788. Another revised return was filed on 12th Oct., 1988, declaring net wealth of Rs. 6,88,100. The assessment order was passed on 27th March, 1990, under s. 16(3) wherein the net wealth was determined at Rs. 7,01,000. In the said assessment order dt. 27th March, 1990, the following Office Note was left : "Office Note : The valuation of property at No. 1, Community Centre, Zamrudpur, New Delhi, is pending for decision by the DVO II, IT Deptt. Rohit House, New Delhi, vide V. O.'s letter No. DVO/II/IT/Val. /WT/88-89/280 dt. 28...
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!