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 Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2004)90TTJ(Ahd.)1024
These are cross-appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 27-6-2004. Since facts and issues involved are common, these appeals have been heard and are being disposed of by a common order.The cross-appeals relate to the block assessment made by the assessing officer for the block period comprising of assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000, and further current period 1-4-1999 to 29-6-1999. At the outset, relevant facts having a bearing on the points in issue may be briefly set out. Search operations were conducted by the Income Tax authorities at the residential premises of Dr. Manjit Singh and Smt.Pammy Manjit Singh on 29-6-1999. Smt. Pammy Manjit Singh is trustee of the assessee-trust and is also principal of primary section of the school. Her husband, Dr. Manjit Singh, is administrator and principal of secondary and higher secondary sections of the school run by the trust at Piplod, Surat, Pursuant to searches carried out a...
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 Delhi
Reported in : (2005)2SOT81(Delhi)
This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 9-3-2000 for assessment year 1995-96 raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the casein deleting an addition of Rs. 1,94,622 on account of trading account under section 145 of the Income Tax Act.2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in deleting an addition of Rs. 11,05,000 under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of payment made to sister concerns.Hence the order of CIT(A) be quashed and that of assessing officer upheld." Before we advert to the aforementioned grounds of appeal, it would be useful to set out a few background facts. The assessee is a firm comprising two partners, namely, Shri Navin Kohli having 90% share and M/s. Navin Projects Pvt. Ltd. (NEPI- for short) having 10% share. The firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and fabrication of rollers, CI parts, solar equipments, etc....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)93ITD30(Delhi)
1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to the claim of assessee Under Section 80HHC of Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee is an artist who declared income from sale of her paintings made locally as well as by way of export.Local sale and export sale were shown at Rs. 89,800/- and Rs. 2,43,038/- respectively. The total income from sale of painting was shown at Rs. 1,89,969/- out of which deduction of Rs. 1,38,051/- was claimed Under Section 80HHC of the Act. Since the assessee could not furnish any evidence regarding custom clearance, she was asked to show cause as to why her claim Under Section 80HHC be not rejected. In response to the same, the reply of assessee was as under: a) The assessee had sold paintings by displaying them in exhibition at Amsterdam, Netherlands. This sale qualifies for deduction Under Section 80HHC since Section 80HHC(2)(b) excludes export of only mineral oils and mineral and ores. The items exported by the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)201
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 28th Aug., 1997 against the order of the learned Dy. CIT, Special Range-34, Mumbai, in the case of the assessee under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, for the block period from asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1996-97 and for the incomplete asst. yr. 1997-98 from 1st April, 1996 to 18th July, 1996.2. The facts of the case leading to this appeal, briefly, are that there was a search under Section 132 conducted at the premises of the assessee-company on 19th July, 1996. In the impugned order it is stated that this search was finally concluded on 22nd Sept., 1996. This search was a part of an all India investigation in respect of lease transactions entered into by a large number of assessees resulting into claim of 100 per cent depreciation allowance on leased assets. A notice under Section 158BC was issued on 22nd Oct., 1996. In response, the assessee-company filed on 21st Jan., 1997, the return of income under Section 158BC for the block period d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra
Reported in : (2006)99TTJAgra212
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dt.22nd March, 2004 and the grounds listed in the original memorandum of appeal read as under : 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in sustaining penalty of Rs. 16,12,000 imposed by the learned. Addl. CIT under Section 271D without properly appreciating the facts, circumstances and the submissions of the appellant. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal.2. Later on, the assessee as per its petition dt. 20th Jan., 2005, sought to raise the following additional grounds : 1. That the learned CIT(A) has not properly appreciated that the requirements of Section 275 of the IT Act have not been fulfilled as the penalty proceedings have been initiated on 12th June, 2003, after a gap of about seven years from the end of relevant assessment year and that too when no assessment proceedings were pending before the learned AO. 2. That the learned authorities below ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The above appeal is filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.7.1997 passed by the Assessing Officer.Since there is a difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Bench, the following questions were referred to the Hon'ble III^rd Member:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer had jurisdiction and justification in including the depreciation allowance in the computation of undisclosed income in the order under Section 158 BC of the Income Tax Act? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether grounds of appeal nos. II to IV raised by the assessee are required to be remitted to the Division Bench, for adjudication thereupon? The Hon'ble III^rd Member, after hearing the same, has passed the order dated 30.9.2004 agreeing with the Hon'ble Accountant Member. Hence, as per the majority opinion, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.1. On difference o...
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!