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 : (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 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!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
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 Mumbai
The appeal by the assessee and the cross objection by the revenue is for the assessment year 1995-96.2. The effective ground urged by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the assessing officer that the sum of Rs. 18 crores paid as per agreements dated 10-1-1995 and 11-2-1995, is revenue expenditure, which should be allowed by spreading the deduction equally over the period of ten years, being period of tenure of the agreements. According to the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have allowed the entire amount as deduction for the assessment year under consideration. Further, the assessee is objecting the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anup Engg. Ltd. v. CIT and the decision of the Hon'blc Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT 3. Coming to the cross objection by the revenue, it is directed against the order of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Dehradun dated 13-2-2004. The only issue in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant society was registered under the Societies Registration Act and has been imparting education to children. The appellant, society claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The assessing officer observed that the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) is available to such other educational institutions which were akin to a university in stature, management, regulatory mechanism, standard of education etc. The assessing officer doubted whether a school run by the appellant society was eligible to be covered under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) as an institution. Further, the Assessing officer observed that the main object of the appellant society was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)111ITD9(Delhi)
1. These two appeals of the revenue in the case of the aforesaid assessees were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned DR and the learned Counsel for the assessees. Therefore, we find it convenient to pass a consolidated order.2. In this appeal, the revenue has taken only one ground to the effect that on the facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that salary and bonus received by the assessee outside India is not taxable in India Under Section 5(1)(c) of the IT Act, specially when as per terms of employment, his office was based in New Delhi and he was responsible to Delhi office even though, he rendered services outside India.3.1 On perusal of the order of the DCIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi (herein after called the AO), passed on 6-01-2003, it is seen that the assessee's status during the relevant previous year was not ordinarily resident (NOR). The assessee received salary amounting to Rs. 45,29,212/- and bonus amounting to Rs. 9,83,246/- totaling t...
Tag this Judgment!