Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)46ITD31(Mum.)
..... assessee is only a director and not a permanent chairman of the company.21. there is no prohibition under the nepalese company law on investment made in india by any nepali company and this stands proved by page 309 of the assessee's paper book, which is again a certificate from the above-mentioned chartered accountant, n. krishnaswamy and co.22 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the CIT (A)-11, Mumbai in relation to the order passed under section 195(2), inter alia on the following grounds of appeal: "1. Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-ll [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] ought to have held that no tax is required to be deducted @ 10% from the payment to be made to Pehla Testing Laboratory (Pehla) towards type tests. 2. The CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the payment to be made mainly for standard facility provided by laboratory using highly sophisticated equipment and is essential and core ingredient for carrying out the test. CIT (A) wrongly ignored this aspect which is going to the root of the case. Even while noting that Pehla carried out type test using sophisticated equipment without any human intervention CIT (A) failed to address the topic and wrongly held that consid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Mum.)353
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee and directed against the order of CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai dt. 8th Dec., 2004 for asst. yr. 2001-02.2. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the materials placed on record and applicable legal position.3. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the gifts of Rs. 1,22,70,795 received by the assessee on his 80th birthday as his income from business and profession.4. Ground No. 2 is argumentative in nature in support of ground No. 1, hence, no specific decision thereon would be given as the same would be dealt with ground No. 1.5. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual who filed return of income showing income from other sources. As borne out from the assessment order, it is noted that assessee is a well known social reformer and philosopher and lacs of followers are spread all over the world. The AO from the note enclosed with the computation of income chart (found) that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The Tribunal has decided vide order dated 14-2-2007 the cross appeals of the assessee and the revenue for assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and vide the same order, two cross-objections of the assessee were also decided for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. In these years, three issues were involved in all these three years.2. The first issue was regarding applicability of Section 44C for allowability of head office expenses. This issue was raised in assessee's appeal for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97; whereas, the same issue was raised by the revenue in assessment year 1997-98.This issue has been decided by the Tribunal as per para No. 5 of the impugned Tribunal order as per which, the Tribunal has restored this matter back to the file of the assessing officer with the direction that the assessing officer should decide this issue afresh in all the three years as per amended provisions of Section 44C after considering the Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The Hon'ble President, ITAT, vide order dated 7.8.2006 has constituted this Bench to adjudicate the following issue: Whether in the light of the decision in 232 ITR 2 it must be held that mesnc profit received by the assessee is revenue income chargeable to tax.as well as to dispose off the appeal of the assessee containing the following grounds: (1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax. (Appeals (CIT(A)[ erred in holding that the mesnc profit of Rs. 34,57,01,137/- received by the Appellant pursuant to the consent decree dated 08.01.2002 constitutes revenue receipt assessable to tax and consequently, in confirming the AO's order bringing the same to tax.P. Mariappa Gounder v. CIT and DCIT Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SOT 918 (Del) mesne profits constitute taxable revenue receipts. (3) He further erred in this connection in holding that paragraphs 28 to 31 of the Tribunal's order dated 16.12.2004 pertaining to block assessment were not the operative parts of the Tribunal's order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. Out of this bunch of three appeals, two are revenue's appeals directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXVI, Mumbai dated 4-10-2000 in the case of Shri Vikram S. Agarwal and against the order learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XIX, Mumbai dated 21-4-1999 in the case of Smt. Vanita Bhandari and remaining one appeal is of the assessee i.e., Mrs. P.S. Aggarwal against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-IX, Mumbai dated 30-4-1997. Since, common issue is involved in all these three appeals, these three appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that all these three assessees were the Directors in Diners Club India Ltd. now know as DBS Financial Services F Pvt. Ltd. (DBS). The said company entered into an agreement with Citi bank and has actually sold its business of credit card to Citi bank Ltd. As a part of such deal, with Citi bank required the Diners to get restrictive covenant severall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These cross appeals arise from the order dated 22-2-1995 of Commissioner (Appeals) - XXXIII, Mumbai and are disposed off by this common order as under: 2. The first issue which is common for both the appeals pertains to the determination of assessee's income chargeable to tax and the head of income under which it can be so charged, on transfer by the assessee- company's business of entire credit card operations to City bank NA during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal.Ground No. 1 raised by the department and relevant to this issue is as A under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in his decision that the applicant must have been taken to have transferred the intangible assets of its credit card business to Citibank for a consideration of Rs. 5,61,10,725 (15 lakhs + 3,46,10,725 + 2 crores) and these assets should be treated as long-term assets and long-term capital gains should be accord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)535
2. The first and second ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,79,876 in respect of employer's contribution and Rs. 4,05,635 in respect of employees' contribution to PF/FPF/ESIC paid by the assessee beyond the grace period allowed by the Central Government.3. We heard the rival submissions. The Tribunal is constantly taking the view that the employees' contribution if not paid within the due date extended by the grace period, the same is not allowable. As such, we remand the matter back to the file of AO as to verify whether the payments were made within the grace period. If so paid, it may be allowed. Coming to the employer's contribution, Tribunal is taking the view constantly that if the payment is made within (beyond) the year but before the due date for filing the return, to this extent assessee's claim is to be allowed. AO may verify the date of payment.If it is found that it is paid within (beyond)...
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 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!