Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)178
1. These cross appeals, arising out of the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) dated 15.11.2006 for A.Y. 2003-04 are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Dr. Rakesh Gupta Advocate, along with Shri Ashwani Taneja FCA and Shri Tarun Kumar Advocate, appeared for the assessee whereas Shri B.Koteshwara Rao Sr. DR represented the revenue. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in: 1 deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made on account of claim of gift from Shri Pankaj Jain by the assessee which was not found genuine by the AO. 2 deleting the addition of Rs. 40,68,450/- and Rs. 22,03,850/-made on account of claim of gift of property from Shri Ashok Jain & Veena Jain respectively which were not found genuine by the AO.4. Before adjudicating these grounds, we consider it proper to narrate the factual background and the orders passed by the departmental authorities in relation to the main issues involved. The facts of the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)513
1. This appeal by the Revenue for asst. yr. 2001-02 arises out of order of CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi.2. The only issue for consideration relates to treating the period of 41 days spent by the assessee in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and U.K. were for performance of duties outside India. The effective grounds of appeal are reproduced as under: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that a period of 41 days spent by the assessee in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and U.K. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that as per contract the visits to Sri Lanka and Pakistan were on account of work done in those countries where as per record, the assessee had completely failed to submit copies of such contract/ appointment letter before the AO. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the separate tax treatment should be given to on periods and off periods sala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Mum.)353
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee and directed against the order of CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai dt. 8th Dec., 2004 for asst. yr. 2001-02.2. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the materials placed on record and applicable legal position.3. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the gifts of Rs. 1,22,70,795 received by the assessee on his 80th birthday as his income from business and profession.4. Ground No. 2 is argumentative in nature in support of ground No. 1, hence, no specific decision thereon would be given as the same would be dealt with ground No. 1.5. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual who filed return of income showing income from other sources. As borne out from the assessment order, it is noted that assessee is a well known social reformer and philosopher and lacs of followers are spread all over the world. The AO from the note enclosed with the computation of income chart (found) that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These are the two appeals filed one by the assessee and other filed by the Revenue and both are against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIX, New Delhi dt. 14th July, 2000. There are six grounds in the appeal of the assessee. Grounds 3 to 6 of the assessee's appeal are narrative and the issue that arises from them is whether the CIT(A) would have taken a decision based on the available facts and delete the addition of Rs. 1,61,86,880 instead of setting aside the issue relating to the alleged low GP to the files of the AO with certain guidelines. Further, the CIT(A) is directing the AO to apply the provisions of Section 92 of the IT Act and issuing certain directions in this regard. Finally, other two grounds Nos. 1 and 2 are: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of commission of Rs. 11,07,251 paid to RTP Business Enterprises, Rs. 8,500 paid to JK Traders and Rs. 8,400 paid to Technomed Services on the ground that the appellant failed to bring any evidence...
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 Mumbai
Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the CIT (A)-11, Mumbai in relation to the order passed under section 195(2), inter alia on the following grounds of appeal: "1. Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-ll [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] ought to have held that no tax is required to be deducted @ 10% from the payment to be made to Pehla Testing Laboratory (Pehla) towards type tests. 2. The CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the payment to be made mainly for standard facility provided by laboratory using highly sophisticated equipment and is essential and core ingredient for carrying out the test. CIT (A) wrongly ignored this aspect which is going to the root of the case. Even while noting that Pehla carried out type test using sophisticated equipment without any human intervention CIT (A) failed to address the topic and wrongly held that consid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)86ITD556(Mum.)
1. These two appeals filed by Revenue related to asst. yr. 1996-97.Appeal in ITA No. 1703/Mum/2000 is in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3). Appeal in ITA No. 1705/Mum/2000 is in relation to proceedings under Section 143(1)(a). We shall take up Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1705/Mum/2000 relating to proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) first. Facts of the case in this behalf are that the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income on 26th Nov., 1996. The AO made an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 31st Oct., 1997, in which dry dock expenses claimed by the assessee were disallowed to the extent of Rs. 4, 53,61.339 by way of adjustment. On receipt of this intimation the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A)-XVI, Mumbai, on 20th Feb., 1998, and also filed an application under Section 154 before the AO. Thereafter the AO passed an order under Section 154 on 30th March, 1998, whereby the addition of Rs. 4,53,61,339 made by way of adjustment of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)258ITR106(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order dated August 4, 1994, of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, Bombay, for the assessment year 1991-92. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that expenditure of Rs. 2.80 lakhs incurred on tele film is allowable as revenue expenditure disregarding the fact that asset acquired with enduring benefit was to be used for the purpose of advertisement of business. He also should have followed the ratio of the decision laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Patel International Film Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 219. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting addition amounting to Rs. 28,117 disregarding the fact that the object of expenditure incurred on account of stamp duty related to acquisition of asset and is assessable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2003)78TTJ(Jodh.)567
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 28th June, 1996, of the CIT(A), Ajmer, for the asst. yr. 1993-94.2. The Revenue agitated on the ground that the CIT(A), Ajmer, erred in deleting the trading addition of Rs. 13,05,606 made by the AO by applying net profit rate of 2.67 per cent against the net profit of 0.74 per cent declared by the assessee.3. The brief facts of the case are that the main dispute in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 13,05,606 rejecting the book results.The company-respondent is a manufacturer of polyester suitings. During the year under consideration, on total sales of Rs. 6,28,174 net profit of Rs. 5,00,066, giving net profit rate of 0.74 per cent was declared.The company-respondent was asked to file the detail of purchase and sale of quantity, quality and value. As such details were not filed and the AO felt that book results cannot be verified, he gathered information from the Central excise department about the production, sale and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (2004)90ITD248(Coch.)
These appeals are by the assessee and pertain to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. They are directed against the order dated 13-11-2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Kochi, confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,68,800 and Rs. 3,14,800 respectively for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, levied under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1990-91 & 1991-92 disclosing a loss of Rs. 24,42,200 and Rs. 24,68,020 respectively. Returns were processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 21-3-1991 and 23-9-1991 respectively.Subsequently the assessments were completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee produced a feature film named 'Oru Sayahnathinte Swapnom' and was released on 28-9-1989 and another feature film named 'Arangu' which was released on 22-3-1991. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee was required to file a statement in Form No.52A, cont...
Tag this Judgment!