Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)72ITD155(Mum.)
1. The appellant, Smt. Rajrani Gupta, runs a sex and health clinic named "M/s Kayakalp International" and a beauty clinic named "Monalisa". Her husband, Dr. Sohanlal Gupta, is a dental surgeon. Her son, Dr. Arunkumar Gupta, is also a qualified doctor, being a Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicines & Surgery (B.A.M.S.). Her daughter-in-law, Dr.Renu Gupta, is also a qualified doctor and has the same qualifications as that of her husband, Dr. Arunkumar Gupta. There is another entity called "Dr. Sohanlal Gupta (HUF)" in which all the abovementioned persons are members. The entire family was residing at Bathinda, Punjab, upto mid-July 1991. Because of the terrorist activity in the State of Punjab, they moved to Bombay in 1991, where the appellant has been running the aforesaid sex and health and beauty clinics. Her family members have also been working with her as salaried employees.She has set up three branches of her sex and health clinic in Mumbai.The first one was set up at Borivali in 19...
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 : (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)516
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Central-VII, Mumbai, dt. 30th July, 2004 for the asst. yr.2001-02. "(I) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the entire amount of Rs. 23 crores from M/s EEL was taxable as appellant's income for asst. yr. 2001-02, without appreciating that-- (a) the appellant was bound under agreements dt. 10th Jan., 1995 and 11th Feb., 1995 between him and M/s ABCL to handover to M/s ABCL entire income from 'engagements' as defined in the said agreements except those under Clause 1.7 thereof and M/s ABCL could enforce the terms thereunder as per Clauses 11 and 20 thereof. Further, he was also legally bound by his assurance given in information memorandum of M/s ABCL issued in 1996 for placing shares thereof at a premium of Rs. 70 per share. (b) the said agreements were genuine and bona fide as found by Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order No. 4453/Mum/2000 for asst. yr. 1996-97...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)69ITD336(Mum.)
1. Appellant is an individual. Search operations under s. 132(1) of the IT Act were commenced in his case at various places on 30th October, 1995, and continued upto 20th December, 1995. The assessee filed a return of "undisclosed income" under s. 158BC at Rs. 31,96,963 on 23rd September, 1996. The AO completed the assessment on 31st December, 1996 on a total "undisclosed income" at Rs. 4,52,27,690 and determined the tax payable at Rs. 2,71,36,614. Aggrieved by this order of the AO, the assessee has come in appeal to the Tribunal. The assessee has taken three additional grounds before us. Of these additional grounds, the first one is challenging the legality of the assessment, claiming the order to the time-barred and invalid. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be clarificatory in respect of original ground Nos. 16 and 31. Being legally permissible, the learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the admission of the additional grounds of appeal and hence, we proceed to dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)70ITD330(Mum.)
1. A group of migrants, in the aftermath of partition, led by Mr.Parmanand Deepchand Hinduja came and settled in Bombay. They felt the need for medical care. These persons banded together and on account of their efforts, a small outdoor clinic was opened in December, 1951. In February, 1953, the clinic was converted into an indoor hospital with 30 beds which was progressively increased to 70. In 1954, the persons who started the clinic in a small way, formed a society which was named the "National Health and Education Society". It was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 13th April, 1954. In 1963 a new 100 bed hospital was commissioned in the same plot of land. Gradually this 100 bed hospital increased its activities and in 1972 ventured into medical research. The research institution also came to be recognised by the Government of India. The name of the hospital, after the advent of the research centre, was changed from National Hospital to "P.D.Hinduja National Hospita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)241ITR43(Mum.)
1. The appeal of the assessee, for asst. yr. 1992-93, had come up for hearing before 'A' Bench, Mumbai and on the recommendation of the Bench, the President constituted a Special Bench for deciding the appeal. The issue involved is : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the first Appellate Authority was justified in upholding the order of the AO disallowing deduction under s. 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, with reference to gross convertible foreign exchange received by the assessee by way of fees for technical and consultancy services rendered by it to the parties abroad ?" 2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the appellant is an AOP and consists of nine public sector companies as its members. The appellant provides technical and consultancy services to various parties abroad. For asst. yr. 1992-93, for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1992, the assessee had claimed deduction under s.80-O of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,38,38,386 being 50 per cent o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)100ITD251(Mum.)
1. These three appeals, two by the Revenue and one by the assessee, involve a common issue. The short and neatly identified legal issue that we are required to adjudicate in all these appeals is whether or not the limitation on deduction of head office expenditure, as set out in Section 44C of the Indian IT Act, will apply in the case of non-resident companies governed by the India Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) [(1987) 164 ITR (St) 87], particularly in the light of non-discrimination clause in the said DTAA. This issue is raised by the Revenue by way of the following solitary ground of appeal : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 44C of the Act will not be applicable and the quantum of expenditure will be allowed without the restriction imposed by Section 44C.The assessee has raised the grievance by way of following grounds of appeal : The CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's view that dedu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1993-94 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding certain additions and disallowances.2. The assessee is one of the biggest Indian companies in which public is interested. It is highly diversified and largest "core industries" in India. It produces viscose, staple fibre, rayon, pulp, caustic soda, cement, software, sponge iron, textiles, heavy engineering machinery and chemicals. It employs over 25,000 persons and its plants are located at about 10 places in India.3. In the memo of appeal, several grounds are raised, but during the course of hearing, the first objection taken by the learned counsel for the assessee related to disallowance of part of deduction claimed under s. 80M of the IT Act, 1961 out of dividend income. The assessee during the relevant period received dividends from Indian companies and returns from UTI amounting to Rs. 28.64 crores and distributed dividend approximately Rs. 25.11 crores. In its return of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, dated 19-10-1995 for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, Dr. Hema Purandare and Dr. Amit Chakravarty. During the year the firm purchased one computer machine called "Robotron Computer Aided Image Analyser".The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was not engaged in business nor is it engaged in the activity of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things other than those specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act so as to be entitled for investment allowance on this machinery.She noted that the assessee is engaged in professional activity and are consultant medical geneticist and is offering services mainly for prenatal diagnosis of hereditary diseases/defects. The instrument to be purchased being an advance model of machinery would reduce the required manual labour to 15%. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)3ITD677(Mum.)
1. These are two cross appeals from the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee, a registered firm, engaged in construction of buildings is eligible for deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated 24-4-1974. The partnership business is constructing buildings on a plot of land allotted to them by the Government of Maharashtra at Nariman Point. The building would consist of several shops, offices, basements and garages, which were sold to various persons on ownership basis.3. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1979-80, for which the accounting year was the year ended 30-6-1978, the assessee claimed that they were entitled to deduction under Section 80J. The ITO held that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction, while, on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decisions of the Bombay Tribunal Benches in some other cases held that the assess...
Tag this Judgment!