Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 19.2.2002 against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-II, Agra dated 11.12.2001 in the case of the assessee in relation to order under Section 158BC for the block period 1.4.1988 to 29.4.1998.2. The first ground in this appeal is general and is covered by subsequent grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 are directed against the validity of notice under Section 158BC and the ground of appeal No. 4 is directed against the Assessing Officer completing the assessment under Section 158BC without issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Besides, by way of grounds of appeal No. 6, the assessee has disputed the legality of search itself.3. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee was not interested in disputing ground of appeal No. 6 in view of ITAT Special Bench decision reported in 95 TTJ 25 (Del.)(SB). We, therefore, reject the assessee's ground of appeal No. 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)98ITD285(Delhi)
1. Since there is a difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench we state the following points of difference and refer the same to the Hon'ble President for further necessary action as envisaged under Section 255(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Whether on the facts and findings, issue being identical and covered by various Tribunal orders arising from the same search and in the light of material on record, the ld Accountant Member is justified in dileting the addition on account of investment in share capital of Rs. 21,63,070/- made as undisclosed income of the block period of the appellant or that the Ld. Judicial Member is justified in restoring the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh.? I have received the following proposed question under Section 255(4) of the I.T. Act. 1961 in ITA No. 206/Del. /2002. Whether on the facts and findings, issue being identical and covered by various Tribunal orders arising from the same search and in the hight of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Pune.)741
1. All these three appeals have been filed by the Revenue out of which two are against a consolidated order of CIT(A), dt. 15th March, 1993, and the third one is against an order of CIT(A), dt. 16th Feb., 1994.These appeals have been filed against an order under Section 195 of the IT Act. Since the issue raised in these appeals is common, therefore, consolidated, heard together and hereby decided by this common order.Identical grounds have been raised and the substantial ground is ground No. 1 in all these appeals reproduced below. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the process design documentation fees paid to the assessee's collaborator company was part and parcel of plant and not royalty.2. The facts leading to these appeals were that an order under Section 195 was passed by the Dy. CIT dt. 5th Sept., 1990, wherein it was mentioned that the assessee has applied for a "No Objection Certificate" in connection with remittanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Ahd.)879
1. Of these three appeals, first two appeals are cross-appeals one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) dt. 25th Jan., 2003 for the block period 1st April, 1989 to 20th Jan., 2000 and the third appeal is by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dt. 24th Nov., 2004 for asst. yr. 2001-02.ITA No. 429/Ahd/2003 for block period 1st April, 1989 to 20th Jan., 2000 (assessee's appeal): 1. The assessment made under Section 158BC r/w Section 158BD dt. 28th Feb., 2002 is ab initio void, illegal and invalid. It is therefore prayed that the same be cancelled. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) considering that the assessment proceedings being initiated on the basis of vague notice under Section 158BC and that the notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) having not been issued within prescribed time under the law, ought to have held the assessment as invalid and therefore ought to have cancelled the same. 3. The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)99ITD91(Mum.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXXI at Mumbai passed on 30th March, 2004, and arises out of the regular assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessment has been completed by the Dy. Director of IT (International Taxation)-II(1) at Mumbai.2. The assessee-company, M/s Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd. (Hong Kong) (hereinafter shortly referred to as "Star Ltd.") is a non-resident company incorporated in Hong Kong. The assessee is a subsidiary company of M/s Star Television Ltd., a company incorporated in British Virgin Islands.3. The assessee-company is carrying on the business of selling "airtime" to various Indian advertisers. The assessee-company makes the sale of airtime in India through its advertising sales agent, M/s Star India (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "SIPL"), a company incorporated in India. SIPL is marketing the advertisement ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal is preferred on behalf of the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds. The assessee has filed the cross objection assailing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on certain grounds. Since the appeal and the cross objection were heard together, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order. We, however, prefer to adjudicate them one by one.2. Through this appeal, the revenue has assailed the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in: (1) directing the assessing officer to give deduction of Rs. 2,83,33,333 under Section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself is basically a trader and does not have any manufacturing facility/activity and also without appreciating the fact that the liabilities of excise, Modvat, sales tax etc., in respect of the production, cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (2006)103ITD324(Bang.)
1. All the appeals by assessee are directed against various orders of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Bangalore dated, 18-3-2004, 23-3-2004, 31-3-2004, 29-6-2004 and 23-9-2004 in the appeals filed under Section 248 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee filed the appeals under Section 248 denying his liability to deduct tax under Section 195 in respect of payment made for purchase of software from various concerns abroad.2. Since the appeals before learned CIT(A) were filed under Section 248 of the Act, there is no finding of the Assessing Officer available on the issue. However, the Assessing Officer on earlier occasion has held that the assessee as the 'assessee in default' under Section 201 for failure to deduct tax on similar payments. Learned CIT(A) by order dated 27-2-2004 has confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. The assessee challenged the order of learned CIT(A) dated 27-2-2004 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order in ITA Nos. 86...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
1. The assessee has filed these appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-VI dated 31-1-2002.2. The assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking. The assessee-company entered into contracts with three non-resident companies by agreement dated 25-4-1991, 12-4-1994 and 20-4-1999. According to the agreements, the non-resident companies were supposed to provide know-how, technical information, technical assistance, training, manufacturing data for which licence was granted to the assessee-company for its production and updating the product in India and abroad. The licensors, i.e., foreign companies who are the sole owners of the technical information or know-how granted to the assessee-company as licensee. Know-how was defined in the agreement as knowledge and technical expertise possessed by licensor. Similarly, the technical information and technical assistance were also defined therein. The different clauses of the agreement has been quoted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Bang.)631
1. These cross-appeals by assessee and Revenue are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Bangalore dt. 4th July, 2003. We shall first deal with the appeal of assessee.1. The first ground of appeal is against disallowance of a sum of Rs. 10,86,803 towards share issue expenses.2. At the time of hearing learned Counsel for assessee Shri Padam Khincha did not press the ground. For want of prosecution, the ground is dismissed and the disallowance is confirmed.3. The next ground of appeal is against disallowance of a sum of Rs. 44,43,000 being custody charges paid to NSDL.3.1 During the year, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 44.43 lakhs to National Security Depository Ltd. (NSDL) as one-time charges for converting 80,08,600 shares of company from physical certificate into dematerialize form. The AO found that as per the letter of NSDL dt.21st July, 1997, the assessee company has taken over the liability of shareholders. He held that since the liability is that of shareholders and no...
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!