Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore
Reported in : (2004)91ITD603Indore
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 502222/- that was made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest as such disallowance was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in the AY 1992-93. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21000/- that was made by the AO on account of notional interest on the amount of Rs. 2 lac advanced for non-business purposes. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2252413/- that was made by the AO on account of power subsidy treating it as revenue receipts, whereas the ld. CIT(A) has held it as capital receipts. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 132975/- that was made by the AO on account of expenses incurred for installation of machinery (which is a fact admitted by the assessee itself) treati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2004)84TTJ(Chennai)907
1. By this miscellaneous petition, the assessee seeks rectification of the error in the order of this Tribunal dt. 12th Dec., 2002, read with order dt. 24th Sept., 2003, in the aforesaid appeals.2. The petition of the assessee is that the above two appeals were disposed of by the common order dt. 12th Dec., 2002, by the Tribunal.The assessee was in appeal against the disallowance of claim for warranty, guarantee and liquidated damages for the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 amounting to Rs. 74,43,308 and Rs. 3,14,77,555, respectively. The Hon'ble Tribunal upheld the order of the authorities below and confirmed the disallowance after giving a finding in paras 11 to 14. In passing the order, the Tribunal had committed a mistake in both facts and law. It was pointed out that the Tribunal had given the findings in para 14 which is extracted hereunder : "14. In these two cases the assessee-company has claimed for damages as a deduction in computing its income as soon as the delay in the sup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)3SOT227(Mum.)
The only issue arising in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 8,10,000 made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained investment in excess stock.Briefly stated the facts are, that the assessee was the Proprietor of M/s. Quality Wire Products, manufacturing wire mesh and poultry equipments. A survey action was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 4-12-1996 in the course of which, the stock inventory was prepared. The Closing Stock as per the Trading Account was worked out to Rs. 14,42,082 while the stock as per the inventory prepared amounted to Rs. 22,45,941. Thus, according to the survey party, there was excess stock of Rs. 8,03,859. The statement of the assessee was recorded on oath on the same date in which the assessee expressed his inability to explain the discrepancies found in the stock. Accordingly, the assessee offered the amount of Rs. 8,10,000 for the purpose of taxation. However, in the return of income filed on 31-10-1997 for the year un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Mum.)974
1. These appeals are by the assessee and the Revenue, pertaining to asst. yr. 1991-92.2. HA No. 1464/Bom/1995 : The first ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,80,40,772 as revenue receipt, being the amount received as non-compete fees from Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd. 3. The assessee filed the return on 30th Dec, 1991, declaring income at Rs. 34,88,780. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a), taking the income at Rs. 2,13,05,795. Assessee is in the business of manufacturing and selling of packed water coolers, commercial refrigeration equipments, air conditioners, air handling units, etc.and also trading in electronics and other appliances, having factories at different places. Assessee had a total turnover of Rs. 1,85,62,38,358, which includes commission also.4. While framing the assessment order, AO noticed, assessee received Rs. 1,80,40,772 from Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd. (for short 'HPI'...
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 Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)42ITD39(Kol.)
1. These three appeals filed by the assessee pertain to the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, they are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated 19-2-1990, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1983-84, the appeal is directed against the order dated 24-3-1987 passed by the CIT(A) in appeal against the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 164(1)/144 A of the Act. The issue in all the appeals is common; in fact, while passing the order under Section 263, the CIT has relied on and adopted the reasons, set out in the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1983-84. Since the issue is common and since all the appeals were heard together on the same day, we dispose them of by a common order, for the sake of convenience.2. The question posed before us for decision is whether the assessee-trust is liable to be assessed at the maximum marginal rate of tax u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1992)43ITD691(Ahd.)
1. There are a number of grounds in-this appeal but the ground regarding which arguments were made most extensively is an additional ground. It is an important ground. If it is decided in favour of the assessee it would not be necessary to decide the other grounds. That ground is that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer is barred by limitation. It arises in this way.2. The assessment order has been passed on 24-9-1984 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B. The assessee had filed objections to the draft assessment order. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) had passed an order under Section 125A(1) conferring concurrent jurisdiction over this case on the IAC from 1-11-1978. The assessee's contention is that since this concurrent jurisdiction had been conferred, the provisions of section 144B would not be applicable by virtue of sub-Section (7) thereof so that the extension of limitation period available under Section 153, Explanation 1 (iv) was not available and that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1993)46TTJ(Ahd.)1
There are a number of grounds in this appeal but the ground regarding which arguments were made most extensively is an additional ground. It is an important ground. If it is decided in favour of the assessee it would not be necessary to decide the other grounds. That ground is that the order passed by the ITO is barred by limitation. It arises in this way.2. The assessment order has been passed on 24th Sept., 1984 under S.143(3) r/w S. 144B. The assessee had filed objections to the draft assessment order. The CIT (Central) had passed an order under S.125A(1) conferring concurrent jurisdiction over this case on the IAC from 1st Nov., 1978. The assessees contention is that since this concurrent jurisdiction had been conferred the provisions of S. 144B would not be applicable by virtue of sub-s. (7) thereof so that the extension of limitation period available under S. 153, Expln. 1(iv) was not available and that therefore, the normal period of limitation was applicable. Since, the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2005)93ITD71(Hyd.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), Guntur, dated 3-3-2003. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us:- "2. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer of the amounts of donations received by 'Sri Satya Sai Trust for Learning' to the income declared by the appellant which is contrary to the facts and provisions of law. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the Assessing Officer did not call for the objections of the appellant for the proposed addition." 2. The assessee is the proprietrix of Omega Academic Services (OAS in brief), an educational institution. A survey was conducted at the premises of the institution on 24-8-1999. During the course of survey, certain challans for payment of donations to Sri Satya Sai Trust For Learning were found. The husband of the assessee, Shri P. Janaki Ramulu, who was in charge of administration of OAS, was questioned. He gave...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (1983)6ITD560(Bang.)
1. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a radiologist who had installed X-ray unit in his clinic would be entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The respondent-assessee is a consulting radiologist. He receives salary from some hospitals as a consultant radiologist. He also receives consultation charges from his own patients. He has set up X-ray unit in his clinic during this year costing Rs. 1,06, 478. From the X-ray unit he has received collections amounting to Rs. 67,476 apart from Rs. 9,600 received as consultation charges during this year.He has a technician who operates the X-ray unit. The assessee claimed investment allowance on the X-ray plant installed by him during this year. The ITO rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee being a professional does not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 32A to qualify for the claim of investment allowance. The assessee appealed to the AAC. ...
Tag this Judgment!