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 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)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 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 : (2004)91ITD133(Delhi)
1. These are eight appeals filed by assessee and department against the orders of CIT (Appeals). Out of eight appeals, five appeals arise from a consolidated order passed by the CIT (A) for the three Financial Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 relevant to Assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01, respectively. The CIT (A) has partly confirmed the orders Under Section 201/201(1A) passed by the Assessing Officer holding the assessee to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source on payments made to non-resident parties for overhaul of its air-crafts, engines and components etc. She however held that such payments to the residents of UK and USA are not chargeable to tax keeping in view the provisions of the DTAAs with those countries. The Assessee is in the appeal before us for all the three years. The Revenue is in appeal for Financial Years 1998-99 to 1999-00 only. As the issues are common in all the three years, these appeals are disposed by a consolidated order.2. The remaining th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)81ITD160(Delhi)
1. The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt 29th Dec., 1998, pertaining to asst. yr. 1994-95. The first ground of appeal relates to deduction under Section 80-O of the Act.2. The assessee-company provides professional services in the field of medicines. It is headed by Dr. N.P.S. Chawla and Dr. (Miss) Devjit Kinberlay Chawla, as directors. The assessee-company got the necessary expertise in the matter of providing emergency medical assistance to any person anywhere in India on call. It has on its own panel several qualified doctors who always remain on call, provide necessary medical services wherever required and give professional information to foreign insurers. It is patronised by almost all the insurance companies in the world and some important select embassies of foreign countries, though no formal agreement exist in some of the cases. After providing required treatment they are also provided qualified doctor to escort them back to their dest...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)72ITD514(Delhi)
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 15-1-1998 recorded by CIT(A) XIV, New Delhi, deciding the appeal of assessee for assessment year 1994-95.2. Grounds No. 1 to 11 relate to common issue about deduction claimed by assessee under section 80-IA of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Facts giving rise to this issue are that facts as available on record are that assessee-company was granted industrial licence by Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, Govt. of India vide No. SIA/EIR/915(90) dated 16-10-1990 for manufacture of coated metal electrodes (anodes and cathodes) at Kundain Industrial Area, North Goa, Goa State. It is also the case of the assessee that the assessee-company obtained necessary registration certificate from Excise Department vide letter No. M/PNJ/3/93 dated 23-6-1993 and entered into an agreement dated 26-2-1993 with U.H.D.E.India Ltd. for coating of titanium sub-strates numbering 1212 and started prod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These two appeals filed both by the Revenue as well by the assessee are consolidated and disposed of by a single order. Appeals containing common issues relate to asst. yr. 1989-90.2. At the outset it may be pointed out that none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice having been sent through registered post.On perusal of the order sheet we further find that the appeals have been fixed right from the year 1996 onwards. Considering the several opportunities allowed, we proceed to dispose of appeals ex parts qua assessee but on merits. The submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and the paper book submitted by the assessee are taken into consideration while disposing of the appeals.3. Taking up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 599/Del/1992 first, we find that the first contention raised relates to disallowance of loss of Rs. 30,000 claimed by the assessee. The facts in brief are that the assessee-company who is having its factory at Okhla Industrial Area Phas...
Tag this Judgment!