Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)51ITD566(Delhi)
1. These two appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the revenue for the assessment year 1990-91 are directed against order of CIT (Appeals)-I, New Delhi dated 22-12-1993. As common points are involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order.2. The first issue relates to disallowance of depreciation on bottles.The assessee-company in the relevant period carried production of Punching, binding and laminating machines and leasing business. It had claimed 100% depreciation on soft drink bottles which the company purchased from M/s Arizona Printers and Packers Ltd. and leased out to M/s Residency Food and Brewerages Ltd. vide Lease agreement dated 1-2-1990. The learned revenue authorities disallowed the claim mainly on the ground that these bottles were not put to use and, therefore, conditions of Section 32 of the Act were not satisfied. The CIT (Appeals) held that only 11 out of 50 trucks of bottles sent by the manufacturer (Sup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. ITA No. 163/Asr./2003 (assessment year 1998-99) is an appeal by the assessee - Tejinder Singh (HUF). It arises out of the assessment made on it under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act by order dated 27.3.2001. In this assessment order, an addition of Rs. 16,80,475/- was made under Section 168 of the Act. The amount represented sale proceeds of jewellery which had earlier been disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure Income Scheme, 1997. The jewellery was shown to have been sold to M/s. Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar, a firm of jewellers located in Delhi. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the sale and held that the assessee has adopted a device to introduce his own unaccounted income into the regular books. The addition was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and the assessee has come in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble President took into account the recommendation of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2006 and also the fact that the matter was of public importa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)752
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 20th Oct., 2000 of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi pertaining to 1994-95 assessment year. 1(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation @ 40 per cent on leased trucks against 20 per cent allowed by the AO. 1(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the return of income the assessee had claimed depreciation @ 20 per cent and during the course of assessment proceedings a letter was filed claiming depreciation @ 40 per cent and such letter was filed beyond the period stipulated in Section 139(5).2. Right at the outset, it was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the point at issue is covered in assessee's favour by virtue of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. and Ors. (2003) 179 CTR (Del) 23 : (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del) and the orders dt. 27th Feb., 2003...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. With this order, we shall dispose off the appeal filed by the assessee and Cross Objection filed by the revenue arising from the order of CIT (A), New Delhi, passed in Appeal No. 168/2001-02 dated 20.3.2002 for the sake of convenience.2. In its appeal, the assessee has taken nine grounds. The Ground Nos.1 to 8 of the appeal relate to the issue of receipt of share application money amounting to Rs. 1,79,50,000/- pending allotment being treated as unexplained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No. 9 relates to the issue of charging of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned AR for the assessee conceded before us that charging of interest Under Section 234B and 234C is consequential in nature and shall be reworked according to the appellate order passed by the Tribunal. Whereas, in Cross Objection, the Revenue has raised following ground: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the Order dt. 19.3.2004 of CIT(A)-V, New Delhi relating to the A.Y. 2001-2002.2. The facts and circumstances giving raise to the present appeal are as follows. The assessee is a company. It is in the business of operation of air craft for carriage of passengers. It possesses the necessary certificate granted by the Director General of Civil Aviation under the Air Crafts Act, 1934 to operate the air craft. The permission so granted specifically mentions that the assessee shall comply with the provisions of the Air Craft Act, 1934, Air craft Rules, 1937 and orders, directions, requirements issued under the aforesaid Act and rules from time to time. The assessee purchased a Second hand Cessna citation air craft in September, 1997.3. The assessee filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2001-2002 declaring a loss of Rs. 49,21,329/=. In arriving at this loss the assessee had made deduction of Rs. 39,67,99/= as provision for overhauling and hot sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-9-2005. Although the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal but at the time of hearing ground Nos. 1, 4 and 7 were not pressed and, therefore, the Sctme stand dismissed as not pressed. The only grounds remains for adjudication are given as under: 2. That the Hon'ble Coramissioner (Appeals) has erred in facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 16,25,000 made by the learned assessing officer treating the amount of unsecured loans received from depositors as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,255,000 made by the learned assessing officer towards unsecured loans received from the following depositors as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to adjudicate on the issue of levying of interest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. We find it convenient to dispose of these cross appeals by the revenue and the assessee by this common order, as these emanate from the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak dated 16-5-2005 relating to assessment year 2001-02.2. We shall first deal with the appeal of the revenue wherein the solitary ground reads as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learnedCommissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,06,000 representing difference of deposits shown to have been received from S/Shri M.R. Kulkarni, Kanti Parshad, Smt. Padma and Smt. Lila Khanna ignoring the letters of confirmations received from these persons showing deposits of Rs. 35,000, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 3,00,000 as against Rs. 65,000, Rs. 86,000, Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 6,00,000 shown by the assessee in its books of account.3. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of generation of e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 23-7-1997 against the order of the learned assessing officer being Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hissar Circle, Hissar, dated 27-6-1997 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act. This appeal has been assigned to us by the order of the Honble President, ITAT for disposal as well as for consideration and decision on the following question: What is the meaning and scope of phraseology, Such other materials or information as are available with the assessing officer and relatable to such evidence appearing in Section 158BB(1) of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1-7-1995." 2. In this appeal the assessee originally filed grounds of appeal running into 24 pages. As these grounds were not in accordance with Rule 8 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, the assessee was directed to file concise grounds of appeal. Finally the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)103ITD389(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 23rd July, 1997 against the order of the learned AO being Asstt. CIT, Hissar Circle, Hissar, dt. 27th June, 1997 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC of the IT Act. This appeal has been assigned to us by the order of the Hon'ble President, Tribunal for disposal as well as for consideration and decision on the following question: What is the meaning and scope of phraseology, 'such other materials or information as are available with the AO and relatable to such evidence' appearing in Section 158BB(1) of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995.2. In this appeal the assessee originally filed grounds of appeal running into 24 pages. As these grounds were not in accordance with Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules, the assessee was directed to file concise grounds of appeal. Finally the assessee filed revised "Summarized ground of appeal" on 8th Dec., ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)8SOT513(Delhi)
These are three appeals by the assessee against three different orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) for financial year 2001-02. Since identical grounds are involved in all these appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. Common grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are as under: "1. The appellant had not paid any commission to the advertising agencies and there was no requirement of any deduction of tax at source under section 194H.2. The advertising agencies never rendered any service of agency to Doordarshan Commercial Service. The use of the expressions, 'agency' and 'commission' is not decisive, when there was no principal-agent relationship between Doordarshan Commercial Service and the advertising agencies.3. The facts on record show that the relationship between Doordarshan Commercial Service and any advertising agency is between twoprincipals.4. The decisions of the High Court in CIT v. ...
Tag this Judgment!