Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)82ITD106(Mum.)
1. Assessee is a firm of Solicitors. It is operating as a partnership firm in the United Kingdom and is tax resident in UK. Assessee was appointed as English Legal Advisors for the following three infrastructure projects in India : (1) Bhadiavati Power Station Project--It is a three-way joint venture for the construction of a power plant with three participants, viz. M/s Ispat Industries Ltd., a resident of India; M/s GEC Alathom Group, a non-resident and M/s Electricite de France, another non-resident. These three participants were the clients of the assessee-firm. (2) Vizag Power Project--It is a two-way joint venture for the construction of a power plant with two participants, viz. M/s National Power pcl and M/s Machen. Both the non-resident participants were its clients. (3) Rawa Oil and Gas Fields Project--The only client of the assessee was a company resident in Australia.2. Assessee did not file the return for the relevant year of assessment in the normal course. On 5th May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)10ITD240(Mum.)
1. All the appeals except the last two are by the department. The common point in dispute in all these appeals relates to the allowability of certain amounts claimed by the assessee under the head 'Sales Promotion Expenses' and stated to represent secret commission incurred in connection with its business. Except for the last two assessment years where the appeals of the assessee are before us, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim of secret commission. For the last two years, the claim not being allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has come up on appeal. For the assessment year 1975-76, the department has challenged four other points and for the assessment year 1976-77, three points. These are dealt with first and the common point relating to the secret commission is dealt with in the later part of this order.2. The assessee sold a flat during the year along with a garage at Hill Park. Long-term capital gains of Rs. 1,11,500 were returned. The ITO ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This Special Bench of the Tribunal has been constituted to decide the following question : " Whether the expenses in the nature of free samples distributed by a pharmaceutical company to the members of the medical profession are to be regarded as expenses on 'advertisement, publicity and sales promotion ' within the meaning of Section 37(3A)/(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 2. It is the principal question in the appeal of the appellant-assessee and those of the interveners.3. Briefly stated, the business of the assessee is to manufacture and sell medicines. In the course of that business, they distribute samples of their products free of charge to doctors through their representatives who record in certain forms information regarding their use by the doctor and his experience in that regard.4. The Income-tax Officer made a partial disallowance of the expenditure under Section 37(3A) and 3(B) in respect of these samples claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe...
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!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)11ITD519(Mum.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal on various grounds mainly relating to the assess ability of compensation received from the Maharashtra Government in February 1979 in respect of 181 acres of land at Oshiwara near Jogeshwari, compensation received from the Bombay Municipal Corporation for a piece of land at Parel and balance of sale proceeds received from Oshiwara Land Development Corporation (P.) Ltd. in respect of 542 acres of land, as business income.2. At the time of hearing on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 28-6-1984, the counsel for the assessee had sought leave to take some additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment. The grounds being purely legal were admitted. There are as many as eight additional grounds. For the sake of convenience, we will take up the additional grounds first. The counsel for the assessee has grouped the additional grounds into four effective grounds. It is contended that : (i) the order of the assessment made by the ITO under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)22ITD87(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal relating to the assessment year 1980-81 preferred by M/s Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, West Germany, hereinafter referred to as "the assessee".2. We will set out in broad terms the background in which the appeal has come to be heard by this Special Bench.3. The assessment made is in the status of a non-resident. The accounting period is from 1-10-1978 to 30-9-1979. The assessee had entered into various agreements with parties in India and in the present appeal the terms of 11 such agreements came up for consideration involving payments which could be grouped together under 14 items. Different nomenclature has been assigned to different items of payments. The descriptive break-up is as under :-- The details of the 14 different items giving reference to the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, as also to the articles/clauses in the relevant agreements, and indicating wherever such agreements had been the subject of consideration in the assessment order for the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The above captioned two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Asstt. CIT (Investigation), Circle-1(1) Kalyan passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') relating to the block period commencing from 1st April, 1985, to 8th February, 1996. (IT (S&S) A. No. 50/Bom/97 has been filed against the computation sheet dt. 28th February, 1997, while IT (S&S)/Bom/97 is against the speaking order of the even date. Since both the appeals relate to the same block period, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed by this common order.2. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential/shopping projects in the name and style of Vikas Builders.The assessee filed his regular returns of income and assessment was made upto asst. yr. 1995-96. On 8th February, 1996, a search and seizure action under s. 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)65ITD380(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central-IV, Bombay and pertains to the assessment year 1985-86.2. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3), read with Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The accounting year of the assessee ended on 30-6-1984. The assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. The assessee-company is following the mercantile system of accounting. It filed its return of income for the relevant year of assessment on 28-6-1985, reflecting therein income of Rs. 3,84,14,220. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 26,20,51,000 in the total income of the assessee under the head "Premium on sale of cigarettes". The Assessing Officer deducted the amount of commission and trading income alleged to be reintroduced by means of hawala entries and advertisement expenses alleged to be used out of secret bank accounts. The assessee being aggrieved of the assessment ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)32ITD68(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a resident individual, and the Revenue are in appeals involving assessment years 1982-83,1983-84 and 1984-85 for which the respective valuation dates are 31-3-1982, 31-3-1983 and 31-3-1984.Since these are cross-appeals arising out of the common order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), Central-II, Bombay, at our level also, these are being decided by this common order. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether annuity policies are/constitute, taxable wealth of the assessee and if so what should be the valuation thereof; and (ii) Royalty in the hands of the assessee is taxable asset/wealth or not and if sovaluation thereof - what should be.2. Parties have been heard at length on two dates viz., 10-8-1988 and 25-8-1988. Orders of the learned lower authorities have been duly noted. The assessee has placed on our file photostat copy of a 'Policy' issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India as also assessee's Advocate's letter da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)60ITD513(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a limited company, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 28-9-1993 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner exercising his powers under section 263 of the Act and on merits as well.2. The learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Pardiwala, referred to the notice of the Commissioner which has been placed at page 26 of the paperbook. He submitted that the Commissioner in this notice has referred to the search and seizure operation carried out at the business premises of the assessee on the 21st and 22nd August, 1990 resulting in seizure of books of account, loose papers, note-books and diaries. The notice also stated that the statement of full-time Director, Mr. N.M. Savani was taken and that he had admitted that the jottings on the loose papers, note-books and diaries represented part of the undisclosed income. It was further noted th...
Tag this Judgment!