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 Chennai
Reported in : (2002)257ITR38(Chennai)
1. There are three appeals for two assessment years, namely, 1995-96 and 1996-97, by the assessee, Sirius Shipping Company Limited, Chennai, against the respective appellate orders. I. T. A. No. 1043 (Mds) of 1999 relates to the assessment year 1995-96 and is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the rectification petition filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and this appeal was filed in time. I. T. A. No. 1044 (Mds) of 1999, is the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96 against the appellate order dated December 31, 1998, of the Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, Chennai, dealing with the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. This appeal is barred by time by 113 days and the assessee had filed the necessary affidavit and petition for the condonation of delay in filing this appeal, which are dealt with elsewhere in our order. I. T. A. No. 1773 (Mds) of 1999 is for the assessment year 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
1. These four appeals were filed by both the Department and the assessee, i.e., Appeal Nos. 1827 & 1828/Mds/1998 are filed by the Revenue against the common order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30.7.1998 for the Asst. Year 1996-97 under Section 201(1) and 210(1)(1) of the I.T. Act and Appeal No.1503/Mds/99 and No. 200/Mds/2001 are filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 19.1.99 under Section 201(1) & 201(1)(a) and against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30.1.2001 under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act, respectively, both for the Asst. year 1997-98.2. Since all the aforesaid appeals are connected with each other, and as common questions are involved and are based on the same facts and circumstances and parties being the same in all thee appeals, these appeals were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. Before proceeding to deal with these appeals, it would be appropriat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(Chennai)137
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VII, Chennai dt. 13th Nov., 1996. It relates to the asst. yr.1994-95.2. The issue in dispute is on the application of provisions of Section 44BBB of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee received payment from Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) under a contract. The assessee is a non-resident foreign company registered in Itlay entered into contract with NLC, a public sector undertaking for Government of India. This contract relates to unloading, erection, testing and commissioning of 3 Nos. of steam turbine generators with accessories.3. For this assessment year the assessee submitted its return of income on 21st July, 1994, declaring the income as NIL. The assessee has been submitting the return of income since the asst. yr. 1982-83. By applying Rule 10 of the IT Rules, 1962, the AO has been taking a final stand from the asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1993-94 that the profit or loss will be ascertained and assessed on the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2005)93TTJ(Chennai)685
This appeal is against the order under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 passed by the CIT, dt. 25th Nov., 2003. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Committee on Disputes has not accorded its approval for raising the issue regarding jurisdiction of the CIT invoking the provisions under Section 263 of the IT Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by CIT was not pressed before us.Accordingly, the said ground is dismissed as not pressed, 2. The second effective ground of appeal is that the learned CIT erred in directing the AO to disallow the business deduction of Rs. 180.92 crores, being arrears of salary. Brief facts apropos this ground are that the assessee had made a claim of Rs. 180.92 crores on account of pay revision. The assessee in its reply pointed out that liability had been created in the accounts for the pay revision as per Accounting Standard-4, which deals with the events occurring afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Chennai)410
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 2001-02 is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 28th Feb., 2005. The first two grounds are general in nature where the assessee contends that the assessment is bad in law and passed without application of mind. These grounds were not pressed and, therefore, not adjudicated.2. The next ground is with regard to allowability of deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. This issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1996-97 in ITA No. 1313/Mds/2002 in the assessee's own case and the Tribunal, vide order dt. 20th Jan., 2006 has held that the benefit of deduction as per the mandate of the statute could only be given to the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking. Benefit under this section is available to the undertaking and not to the assessee. The income earned from AMC charges (Annual Maintenance Charges of ATM), installation and technical charges, consultation charges and licence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2007)108ITD251(Chennai)
1. These two appeals, one by the Revenue and one by the Assessee are directed against two different orders of the C.I.T. (Appeals). The appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A. No. 783/Mds/2001 is against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals)-XII, Chennai dated 19.2.2001 confirming the order of the Assessing Officer regarding refusal to recognize the partition of H.U.F. under Section 171 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 907/Mds/2001 is directed against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals)-XII dated 19.2.2001 in respect of the assessrment framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act 2. First we will take up the Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 783/Mds/01.The only issue it this appeal relates to confirming the order of the Assessing Officer by the C.I.T. (Appeals) in regard to refusal to grant recognition to the family partition r f Hindu Undivided Family under Section 171 of the Act which took place on 16.9.1994.3. The briefly stated facts of the case are tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : LC(2008)(2)358
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CTT(A) and relates to the assessment year 2000-01.2. Shri J.D. Mistry, learned Counsel for the assessee appeared before us. Department was represented by Shri Shaji P. Jacob. Shri Mistry neatly identified the issues involved in this case as under: i) Whether conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction to make enhancement under Section 25 l of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') did exist under the facts and circumstances of the case? ii) Whether the order of CIT(A) was in conformity with the principles of natural justice? iii) Whether ASPL was a facade created for the purpose of taxation, ex consequent its corporate veil be lifted for consolidating the four contracts? iv) Whether there exists permanent establishment in India in relation to offshore supply activities? v) Whether there exists business connection with Neyveli Lignite Corporation (in short 'NLCT) and Ansaldo Fnergia SpA? 3. Over and above at the ...
Tag this Judgment!