Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)83ITD511(Mum.)
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee on 1st Nov., 1993 and 31st March, 1994, respectively for asst. yrs, 1989-90 and 1990-91 were decided by the order of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'B', Mumbai, dt. 29th March, 1996, along with Department's appeal for asst. yr. 1989-90, being ITA No. 1810/Bom/1993, and assessee's cross-objection No.1035/Bom/1994. Thereafter the assesses filed two miscellaneous applications in relation to the assessee's appeals, being ITA Nos.6351/Bom/1993 and 1717/Bom/1994. These miscellaneous applications were rejected, whereupon the assessee filed Writ Petn. No. 2490 of 2000 before Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The assessee also moved two reference applications under Section 256(1), being RA Nos. 306 & 307/Mum/1996, whereupon reference was made to Hon'ble Bombay High Court for their esteemed opinion. Hon'ble Bombay High Court have thereafter delivered judgment dt. 15th March, 2001 [reported as M. Visvesvaiaya Industrial Research & Development Centre v. ITAT], ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)96ITD9(Mum.)
This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1997-98, being in respect of order under section 171, is directed against the order of CIT (A), Mumbai, dt.. 24-9-2003, whereby the learned CIT (A) dismissed the assessee's appeal upholding the assessing officer's order dated 27-12-2002, rejecting the assessee's application dated 19-4-2002, under section 171 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The facts, in brief, as ascertainable from the material on record, are that one Mohanlal Kishore Shah (Mohanlal K. Shah), Karta of Mohanlal K.Shah, HUF had acquired a plot No. 298, admeasuring 947 sq. yards on 12th Road, Khar, Mumbai-54, on lease from Government of Bombay an 20-10-1926. He constructed a two storied building thereon; the total constructed area being 1/3rd of the total area of the plot and this position of the structure remained there till sale of the same by Harish B. Shah on 17-4-1996, to M/s Narad Builders (P) Ltd. Mohanlal K. Shah expired on 4-10-1954, leavin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)107TTJ(Mum.)268
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dt.28th Sept., 1998 of the learned CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai pertaining to the asst. yr. 1995-96. Grounds raised in this appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that Rule 115 of IT Rules, 1962 applies for the purpose of computing depreciation in the assessee's case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that depreciation should be calculated on the actual cost of the assets based on the rate prevalent on the last date of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration without considering the Hon'ble Court's decision in the case of CESC Ltd. v. CIT holding that depreciation is required to be calculated by applying prescribed rate on WDV of the block of assets with actual cost of the asset determined at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of acquis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)304ITR314(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2000-01, are disposed off by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No: 1429/Mum/2005:- The first ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Assessee filed the return on 29.05.2000 declaring income at Rs. 9,55,370/- along with audited accounts and other documents. The reopening was done under Section 147 of the Act, vide order sheet entry dated 12.01.2004. The reasoning for the reopening is reproduced at Page 1 and 2 of the assessment order, which reads as under: The assessee company has filed the return of income on 29.11.2000, which has been accepted Under Section 143(1) of the Act. The perusal of the Balance-sheet reveals that the capital reserves has increased by Rs. 1.54 crores. Further, the assessee has enclosed a copy of Memorandum Of Understanding dated 24.08.1999 exec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)61ITD129(Mum.)
1. These are two cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the revenue directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 24-10-1989 for the assessment year 1986-87. As certain common points are involved, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the appeal of the assessee. "Disallowance under section 37(4) - Guest house Expenses of Rs. 8,83,372. - CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the appellant's contention that the occupancy charges and administration charges of guest house amount to Rs. 8,83,372 are not for the maintenance of guest house as referred in section 37(4)(1) and could not be disallowed under section 37(4)." 3. The assessee claimed expenditure on guest house of Rs. 23,31,317 and this was disallowed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the following expenditure :- equipments, furniture, etc. Rs. 2,11,447 -...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)65ITD73(Mum.)
1. All these appeals by the 20 appellants are against the penalty orders under s. 271(1)(c) and the facts, circumstances and grounds being the same; therefore, all these appeals of 20 appellants which is known as 'Jhunjhunwala Group of cases' are heard and decided by this common order.2. Before the start of the arguments, it was agreed to by the parties that the arguments, counter-arguments and the decisions may be with respect to the decision in the case of Nirmal Kumar P. Jhunjhunwala, in whose case, the loading order has been passed and that decision will govern all these appeals.3. The detailed facts, as are relevant to various submissions made by the parties, through, are mentioned at the relevant place, yet, we would like to extract a brief before we proceed to discuss and decide various solutions. The facts of the case are that as a result of search warrants and subsequent authorisations dt. 19th August, 1986 in the name of 4 individuals-(1) Purshottamdas F. Jhunjhunwala, (2) K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)18ITD64(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a manufacturer of woollen material from mostly imported wool and exports them. Different grounds of appeal have been raised. These are considered seriatim.2. Disallowance under Section 40(c)/40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The point relating to the treatment of contribution of a sum of Rs. 1,80,750 to the directors/employees Retirement Benefit Fund Trust as a perquisite is covered by the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1973-74 in the assessee's own case in IT Appeal Nos.1270 and 1271 (Bom.) of 1980 and 576 and 3303 (Bom.) of 1981 against the assessee. The other grounds of appeal relating to reimbursement of medical expenses, disallowance of foreign travel expenses and disallowance of depreciation claimed on assets used for scientific purposes are not pressed.3. Closing stock valuation : The ITO found that the assessee was valuing the closing stock exclusive of customs and other fiscal levies.According to the ITO the customs duty on raw materials...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)59ITD156(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a registered as a company under section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Cos'. Act) has filed the appeals fort the two assessment years 1989-90 & 1990-91 and the cross objection against the appeal filed for the assessment year 1989-90 by the revenue department. The appeals involve common issues and because, the cross objection is against the cross appeal filed by the revenue, these appeals have been group together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The common controversy in these appeals of the assessee are in regard to its claim as charitable institution covered by the provisions of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that its income are therefore exempt from tax under section 11 of the Act. The revenue department had refused to grant the exemption because, the assessee diverted its attention to the activities of construction of buildings known as Trade Centre, Commerce Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)90ITD525(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.03.2002 of CIT (A)-XII, Mumbai.2. The first ground of appeal pertains to confirmation by the learned CIT (A) of validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This ground of appeal was not seriously contested on behalf of the assessee. We find that the assessee had filed a writ petition in the Honorable Bombay High Court challenging the issue of notice u/s 148 and the H.C. eventually upheld the validity of the proceedings intiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issue of notice u/s 148. In view of the above facts, the finding of the learned CIT (A) on this issue is confirmed. "The C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the assessment order dated 31.07.2000 passed in consequent of notice dated 18.03.1998 issued under section 148 was not barred by limitation." 4. The assessee is an individual and is proprietor of two concerns viz.M/s. Bio Basic Industrial Undertaking (Daman) and M/s. Basix (India)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)13ITD830(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a trust, assessed as an AOP, sold 2,400 equity shares of the Standard Mills Co. Ltd. and received a surplus computed at Rs. 26,475. The ITO included this surplus as long-term capital gain in the total income. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee claimed that the shares of Standard Mills Co. Ltd. sold were bonus shares and so no capital gains should have been assessed on the surplus. A number of decisions were cited before the Commissioner (Appeals) to support the claim that no capital gain arose on the transfer of an asset for which no cost of acquisition can be ascribed. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the assessee's claim and confirmed the ITO's order.It is, thus, that the matter is in appeal before the Tribunal.2. When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal, reliance was placed by the department on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in In re. Radhika Trust No. 1 [IT Appeal No. 654 (Bom.) of 1982 dated 28-7-1983], in rejecting the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!