Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)1
1. All these cross appeals and cross objection in respect of the three assesses are directed against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) in the respective cases. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.1.1. These matters were fixed before the Division Benches but at the instance of the assesses and in the light of the importance of the issues involved, a request was made to the Hon'ble President to refer the matter to a Special Bench Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The President, I.T.A.T after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decided to constitute a Special Bench.The following question was referred to the Special Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the revenues earned by the appellant from supply of equipment and software to Indian Telecom Operators were taxable in India?" 2. It may be relevant...
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 Jodhpur
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Jodh.)368
1. This is an appeal of the assessee for asst. yr. 1996-97 which is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 29th March, 2000.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from the running of petrol pump situated at Amet. The assessee is having a branch office at Udaipur in addition to head office at Amet. The assessee also derives income from the plying of tankers of its own and of others taken on hire on commission basis. The assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 64,110. This return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, this case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment under Section. 143(3) was completed by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 13,62,970 as against the returned income of Rs. 64,110. This assessment order was subjected to appeal before the first appellate authority, who also confirmed certain additions which are the subject-matter of this appeal. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)461
1. This is an appeal by M/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), against the order dt.13th May, 2003 of CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, relating to the financial year 2001-02.2. In this appeal the appellant has challenged order of the CIT(A) confirming the order of the AO, holding the appellant to be in default for not deducting tax at source at the applicable rates resulting in a short-deduction of tax at source and consequently holding the appellant to be in default under the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Act and levying interest on tax not deducted at source under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the Act.3. The facts and circumstances under which the appeal arises are as follows. The appellant is a joint venture company between M/s Eli Lilly Inc., Netherlands, and M/s Ranbaxy Ltd., and is engaged in the trading of Pharmaceuticals. It imports these products and undertakes their marketing. The products are sold and marketed throughou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee on 17.12.2003 and 6.4.2004 against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai dated 7.11.2003 and 12.12.2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders Under Section 143(3) for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2000-2001 respectively. These appeals have been referred to us as a Special Bench to decide the following issues:- 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss incurred by the assessee on purchase and sale of units of Mutual Funds is allowable or not? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be interpreted as retrospective in operation and if so, its effect?" 2. The facts of the case relevant to the questions referred to us, briefly, are that the assessee company filed return of income for assessment year 2001-2002 disclosing total income at Rs. 57,31,610/-on 29th October, 2001. The Assessing Officer completed assessment Under Section 143(3) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)96ITD1(Mum.)
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee on 17-12-2003 and 6-4-2004 against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai dated 7-11-2003 and 12-12-2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under section 143(3) for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2000-2001 respectively. These appeals have been referred to us as a Special Bench to decide the following issues: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss incurred by the assessee on purchase and sale of units of Mutual Funds is allowable or not? 2. Whether the provisions of section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be interpreted as retrospective in operation and if so, its effect?" The facts of the case relevant to the questions referred to us, briefly, are that the assessee company filed return of income for assessment year 2001-2002 disclosing total income at Rs. 57,31,610 on 29-10-2001. The assessing officer completed assessment under section 143(3) on 31-3-2003 at t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)7SOT615(Mum.)
The revenue is in appeal and the assessee is also in cross appeal before us, against the same order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-10-2003, for the assessment year 1997-98.For the sake of convenience and brevity, we are dealing with the above appeals separately as under, When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that he is under instruction from his client not to press Ground Nos. 1 and 3 which are as under: "1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the re-opening of the assessment made by the assessing officer without appreciating the fact that the assessment was re-opened without fulfilling the conditions laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for re-opening of the assessment.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer in excluding the interest income of Rs. 13,09,782 from the profits of undertaking of the appellant for the purpose of de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Ahd.)818
1. Both these appeals by the assessee are against the order of the CIT(A), Baroda, dt. 14th Aug., 2003 and 22nd Feb., 2005, respectively.2. The grounds taken therein are quite argumentative, but at the time of hearing, the parties came to an agreement that the issues involved in these two appeals of the assessee are as under: (i) The first issue relates to the assessee's claim of deduction of an expenditure of Rs. 6 crores claimed to have been paid, as non-compete fees to M/s VBC Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "VBC") and its founder member, Mr. M.V.V.S. Murthy, after having purchased VBC's plant for manufacturing nitric acid and ammonium nitrate situated at Ponnada Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. (ii) The second issue relates to the consideration of delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF as not deductible under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. (iii) The third issue relates to disallowance of assessee's claim of deduction of the amounts paid on account of emplo...
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
Reported in : (2006)7SOT933(Bang.)
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - III, Bangalore dated 4-3-2005."On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that all the material facts were available in the return originally filed and on mere change of opinion the assessment was not liable to be reopened and accordingly the reassessment as made was bad in law and thus liable to be cancelled." Grounds of appeal relating to reopening of assessment were taken as additional grounds of appeal and these were admitted by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it was mentioned that on verification in the case of M/s. Bellary Steel & Alloys Ltd., (in short BSAL) and the statement of Mr. Madhava, the then M.D. of BSAL, an opinion was formed by the assessing offic...
Tag this Judgment!