Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: nepali Sorted by: recent Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat delhi Page 1 of about 60 results (0.070 seconds)

Virinder Bhatia and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against block assessment orders under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961. These cases belonged to one group/family in which search and .seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act were conducted on 24th Aug., 1995, and were concluded on 28th Aug., 1995. This group was engaged in the business of garments export, purchase and sale of farm houses, etc.Since they are connected cases and common grounds are involved, they were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order, 2. The first common ground of contention of the assessee in these cases except in the case of Mrs. Lavina Bhatia is that the search and seizure operations conducted in their cases under Section 132 of the Act were improper, invalid and illegal because there was no information in possession of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.}/Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.) for reasonable exercise of powers under Section 132 of the Act. It is also contended that since the s...

Virinder Bhatia Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against block assessment orders under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961. These cases belonged to one group/family in which search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act were conducted on 24-8-1995 and were concluded on 28-8-1995. This group was engaged in the business of garments export, purchase and sale of farm houses etc. Since they are connected cases and common grounds are involved, they were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.2. The first common ground of contention of the assessee in these cases except in the case of Mrs. Lavina Bhatia is that the search and seizure operations conducted in their cases under Section 132 of the Act were improper invalid and illegal because there was no information in possession of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.)/Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.) for reasonable exercise of powers under Section 132 of the Act. It is also contended that since the search was invalid...

Smt. Krishna Verma and Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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...

Picker India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Unger Booke David

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...

Ms Mayawati Vs. Dy Commissioner of Income-tax

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...

Mrs. Ranjana Katyal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)479

1. The assessee in this appeal is the late S.K. Katyal, who passed away on 1st Sept., 2002. The assessment for the previous year ended on 31st March, 2002 has been framed on his wife Smt. Ranjana Katyal. The assessee filed a return declaring property income, salary from a partnership firm, profit on the sale of shares and income from other sources. While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, the AO noticed that the assessee had received two gifts of Rs. 2,50,000 each from Sudhir Duggal and Satish Kumar Dhingra. In order to verify the genuineness of the donors, the AO issued summons under Section 131 of the Act. The summons were served on Satish Kumar Dhingra, but he did not appear before the AO. The summons issued to Sudhir Duggal could not be served as he was not available at the given addresses. The AO therefore called upon the assessee to produce these persons, but the assessee could not do so. The AO therefore, took the view that the assessee failed to esta...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Shiv Nadar

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the department, the only ground taken is as under : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 19,88,845 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) when it is clear that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income by not disclosing true and fair market value of perquisite enjoyed by him.2. The appeal arises this way. The assessee is an individual deriving income by way of salary as director of a company and income from other sources. In the return filed for the assessment year 1991-92, he declared income of Rs. 54,78,610. The assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 2,67,99,554. Several additions and disallowances were made in the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act before arriving at the total income and included therein was an addition of Rs. 24,27,402 under the head "Income from other sources" with the following narration : Benefits and perqui...

Dy. Cit Vs. Beer Shiva Educational Social

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in : (2007)103ITD403(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises out of the order of CIT (Appeals)-II, Dehradun, passed on 11-11-2004. The corresponding order of assessment was made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldwani, under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 14-11-2002. The revenue has taken up only one substantive ground of appeal to the effect that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption under Section 11 to the assessee, which was found to be existing not for the charitable purpose, but for the purpose of profit. Therefore, it was prayed that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Income Tax Officer may be restored.2. From the order of the Income Tax Officer, it is seen that the assessee bad shown gross total income of Rs. 2,72,49,129. It was claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,42,99,578 was applied under Section 11 towards the charitable purpose and the balance sum of Rs. 29,49,551 was d...

The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Shri Hiromi Hirose, Japan

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...