Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These appeals are preferred by the assessee as well as the revenue against the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since common issues are involved in these appeals these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. These appeals are preferred by the assessee on almost common grounds. We, therefore, adjudicate them on the basis of issues involved therein.3. In appeal No. 8045/M/2003 first ground relates to the validity of reopening of assessment. During the course of hearing this ground was not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee. As such it is dismissed being not pressed.4. Next issue in these appeals relates to the computation of deduction under Section 33AC. For the sake of reference we take up the facts for the assessment year 1997-98 in ITA No. 8045 of 2003 in which the assessee, claimed deduction under Section 33AC on interest income and miscellaneous income amounting to Rs. 1,22,630 besides other business income of oper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the order dated 23-6-2004 and 19-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Mumbai, arises out of the assessment completed under Sections 143(3) and 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2001-02. These were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. We have heard the parties and have also perused the materials placed on record and applicable legal position.3. First we shall deal with the quantum appeal filed by the assessee i.e., in ITA No. 8165/Mum./04 for assessment year 2001-02. The Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner (Appeals)') erred in confirming the order of the Income- j-. tax Officer 3(2)(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'assessing officer') thereby assessing income at Rs. 2,40,41,710 as against NIL returned income, on the ground that appellant had not commenced the business of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 10-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the matter of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1996-97.2. In the first ground of appeal, the main grievance raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer "of not accepting the appellant's contention that in view of the provisions of art ' 7(3) of the Convention between the Government of United Arab Emirates and the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the tax treaty'), no disallowance is required to be made in computing the total income in respect of expenses attributable to its PE in India".3. Briefly stated, the material facts, so far as relevant to this grievance of the assessee, are like this. The assessee is a non-resident banking company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates.The assessee is carrying on business in...
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
Reported in : (2008)113ITD85(Mum.)
1. The assessee and the revenue are in cross appeals against the separate orders of even date i.e. 27/2/04 passed by ld. CIT(A) on the appeals of the assessee challenging the orders passed by the A.O under Section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act. Since common issues are involved, therefore, we heard all the appeals together and deem it fit to dispose of them by this common order.2. As far as the appeals of the revenue are concerned, the assessee being a Public Sector Undertaking, therefore, for challenging any order of ld. CIT(A) passed on the appeal of the assessee the Department is required to take permission from the Committee On Disputes as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collection of Central Excise 1992(Suppl.11) S.C.C 432. It was pointed out that assessee has obtained such permission for prosecuting its appeal before the Tribunal, however, ld. D.R expressed his inability to inform whether such permission was granted to t...
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
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)855
1. These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of CIT(A). Since these appeals were heard together, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order. We, however, prefer to adjudicate them one by one.2. This is an appeal by the assessee in quantum against the order of GIT(A) on various grounds, which are as under: (I) 1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure as pertaining to acquisition of shares under Section 14A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the case of the appellant, since the interest expenses was business expense. 3. The appellant prays that it be held that the disallowance of interest expenses as above be deleted. (II) 1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of stamp duty of Rs. 71,156. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought have held that the expenditure was for the purpose of the appellant and hen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)294ITR1(Mum.)
1. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in: (a) sustaining deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 26,67,213 instead of giving necessary direction to the AO to allow the duly claimed deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 38,07,772 by resorting to the provision of Section 80-IA(9) despite the fact that the provisions of Section 80HHC and Section 80-IA are independent of each other and the assessee company has not claimed the total deduction under both the sections in excess of the gross total income. (b) sustaining non-eligibility in respect of scrap sale of Rs. 15,130 by considering the same as not derived from the manufacturing activities of the assessee company and consequently reducing the allowable deduction under Section 80-IA.2. The ground No. 1(b) has not been pressed before us and therefore, the only issue which remains for our consideration relates to the interpretation of Section 80-IA(9) of IT Act, 1961 (Act). Briefly stated the facts are the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)106ITD489(Mum.)
1. The neatly identified legal issue that we are required to adjudicate in this Revenue's appeal is whether or not the profits on sale of equipments supplied by the assessee-company for a consideration of Rs. 25,61,29,696, on the facts of this case, are liable to be taxed in India.2. This grievance has been raised by the Revenue by way of following grounds of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the receipt of Rs. 25,61,29,696 by the assessee formed part of execution of turnkey project with Nava Sheva Port Trust and that being one integrated contract, it could not be split up as constituting separate activities and thereby erred in holding that profits arising to the assessee from such activities performed outside India are not chargeable to tax in India. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim in respect of receipts of Rs. 25...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in holding that appellant is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of Rs. 50,13,116 only after reducing a sum of Rs. 32,88,094 being deduction under Section 80-IA as per the provisions of Section 80-IA(9A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record. From the orders of the lower authorities we find that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 83,01,210 which was restricted to Rs. 50,13,116 after having it reduced by the amount of deduction claimed under Section 80-IA at Rs. 32,88,094, invoking the provisions of Sub-section (9A) of Section 80-IA which was introduced by the Finance Act, 1998 with effect from 1-4-1999 by the assessing officer.This ord...
Tag this Judgment!