Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)48ITD175(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a firm, carrying on the business of jewellery has filed this appeal and has raised the issue of liability of loss of Rs. 36 lakhs worth of jewellery which were stolen from the shop and some minor issues like disallowance of car expenses for personal usage and non-allowing of deduction for donation.2. Shri C. S. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the shop of the assessee which is located in the busy business area of Chandni Chowk at Dariba Kalan, was broken into by some miscreants on the night of February 1, 1981, which was brought to the notice of the partners of the firm on the next morning when some passers-by saw the locks of the shop broken and the shutters of the shop slightly open. The police were called and an inventory of the stocks was also taken. The inventory of the stock so taken indicated that gold ornaments weighing 22,440.400 gms valued at Rs. 36 lakhs were found missing. The assessee had lodged their report immediately on arrivi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)48ITD465(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by the assessee, one against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and another against levy of penalty under Section 273(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since facts involved in both these appeals are common, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order. First, we shall take up the appeal relating to penalty under Section 271(1)(c).2. The assessee is a HUF, Shri Deepak Singh is karta of HUF. The assessee derives income from business i.e., 67% share in a partnership firm known as Varun Enterprises and income from other sources. The assessee filed original return on 30th June, 1983 declaring net income of Rs. 4,28,190 after taking into consideration deduction under Section 35CCA at Rs. 5,00,000 claimed to have been made to Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission, Gramsewa Parishad, as per Note 4 appended to the statement of assessable income of the assessee. Later on, the assessee revised return of income on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)40ITD574(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1983 -84, the sole question is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was right in upholding the disallowance of deduction for Rs. 1,98,000 under Section 80GGA of the Income-tax Act in respect of the contribution made by the assessee to M/s Ramakrishna Vivekanand Mission.2. The assessee a Chief Executive of Usha International, a public limited company, of which he was neither a Director nor a shareholder made a donation of Rs. 2 lacs to Ramakrishna Vivekanand Mission by way of two cheques of Rs. 1 lac each drawn on Bank of Baroda on 22-3-1983.These cheques were given to one Mr. Vipin Mehra, an authorised agent of Ramakrishna Vivekanand Mission to collect donations on behalf of the said Mission. The said Vipin Mehra opened a bank account in the name of the Mission without its authority and encashed these cheques in Delhi on 25-3-1983, pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)43ITD21(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ) pertaining to the assessment year 1987 88. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining disallowance of repairs and maintenance amounting to Rs. 1,07,227. The assessee is engaged in the business of ice cream. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee purchased a property from NOIDA authority for a sum of Rs. 2,14,650 and had spent Rs. 1,07,229 on major repairs and renovation which was claimed by the assessee. However, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction on the ground that the expenditure was capital in nature. However, he allowed depreciation on the same.2. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee presented details of repairs which were also filed before the Income-tax Officer which show that a sum of Rs. 46,072 was spent on building repair, Rs. 44,655 on electrical fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)31ITD127(Delhi)
1. The revenue has preferred these appeals for the four assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77. The CIT (A) had disposed of these four appeals by his common order dated 14th April, 1986. The objection of the revenue is on the cancellation of the penalties levied on the assessee for the concealment of incomes under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The quantum of penalties levied were Rs. 44,862, Rs. 30,395, Rs. 33,197 & Rs. 40,072 for the assessment years from 1973-74 to 1976-77 2. The brief facts of the case are brought out below. The business premises of the assessee firm and the residential premises of the partners were searched on 29th Dec. 1981. The seized documents included duplicate set of cash book and ledger which were marked for identification as Nos. 57 & 58, 59, 55 & 56, and 50 relating to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 respectively.The ITO co-relating the items appearing in the seized books and the regular books of accounts was able t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)25ITD136(Delhi)
1. The one issue referred to in grounds of appeal numbered 1 to 5 in this appeal filed by the appellant company (hereinafter referred to as the 'Indian Company') for assessment year 1982-83 is in respect of trading receipt of the appellant in the year in question. According to the appellant it was Rs. 2,13,237 representing his remuneration @ 5 per cent of the actual operating cost of Rs. 31,76,373 subject to adjustment incurred by the assessee for its principal Rolls Royce Limited, U.K. (hereinafter referred to as the 'English Company') in taxable territory. According to the IAC (Assessment) it was the sum of Rs. 31 76.373 remitted by the English Company towards the actual operating cost plus 5 per cent remuneration. According to the IAC (Asstt.) this sum. constituted the taxable receipt of the appellant company. The appellant/Indian Company had returned an income of Rs. 2,13,237 as the income of the assessment year 1982-83. But the IAC (Asstt.) proceeding on the basis of taxable rece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)23ITD594(Delhi)
1. In these second appeals the question is whether the Appellate Asstt.Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Dehradun, whose orders dated 30th March, 1985 in respect of assessment year 1982-83 and of 14th August 1985 for the later two years are brought in appeal, rightly rejected the assessee and confirmed the assessments on the point that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xxa) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in respect of value of shares of M/s. Narendra Explosives Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'NEL').2. The value of shareholdings in NEL was stated to be Rs. 7,75,400, Rs. 4,60,000 and Rs. 7,70,500 for the three years respectively but these are not in dispute neither they are relevant for adjudication of the question before us.3. To understand the controversy and further as to whether the primary question which was necessary to adjudicate the issue were considered and decided, a brief history of NEL must be stated, which is that it was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)13ITD762(Delhi)
1. In this revenue appeal, the solitary ground is against the cancellation of penalty of Rs. 2,550 levied by the ITO under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the assessment year 1977-78.2. The respondent filed its return of income on 7-10-1977, though in normal course, it should have been filed on or before 30-6-1977. In the penalty proceeding initiated for late riling, it was explained that the asses-see was a registered firm and that its finally assessed income amounted to Rs. 1,63,840, on which in the status of registered firm, the tax worked out to Rs. 27,583, against which tax deducted at source under Section 194C of the Act was to the tune of Rs. 54,598 and, therefore, there could be no question of levying any penalty which could be in relation to tax levied on assessment. The assessee further pleaded that no extension application was filed, being under the bonafide belief that the tax deducted at source was much more than the tax due. The IT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)65
1. Certain common issues and facts are involved in these appeals, the same were argued together by the learned Counsel for the assessee and learned Departmental Representative. We are deciding these appeals together for convenience.2. Appeal in ITA No. 2038 is appeal filed by the assessee on 14th May, 2002 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, dt. 12th Feb., 2002 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-96. Appeals in ITA Nos. 2528 and 2729/Del/2002 are cross-appeals filed by the assessee on 10th June, 2002 and Revenue on 21st June, 2002 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, dt. 28th March, 2002 in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-97. Similarly appeals in ITA Nos. 2529 and 2730/Del/2002 are cross-appeals filed by the assessee on 10th June, 2002 and Revenue on 21st June, 2002 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi dt. 27th March, 2002 in the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)1113ITD624(Delhi)
1. The appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 28th Nov., 1997 pertaining to asst. yr. 1994-95.2. In the sole ground, the Revenue has challenged the direction of the CIT(A) to allow deduction under Section 80-I of the Act despite the fact that the product being manufactured by the assessee came under the XIth Schedule of the Act.2A. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the production and manufacture of photo colour films. When the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-I/80-IA of the Act the same was denied by the AO on the ground that the product manufactured/produced by the assessee fell in XIth Schedule of the Act.On appeal the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that in asst. yr. 1990-91 he has allowed the claim of the assessee.This finding of the CIT(A) has been challenged before us. While learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO the learned Counsel supported ...
Tag this Judgment!