Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. Though various grounds have been raised by the assessee but the effective ground is one i.e., whether charges received by the assessee from different parties on account of user of the property owned by the assessee are assessable under the "income from house property" or under head "profits and gains from business or profession".2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is the owner of an immovable property situated at Pedder Road, Mumbai. This property, as per the assessee, was initially used for the purpose of its business of textile. However, on discontinuance of the said business, the company decided to allow the use of the property to other persons along with facilities like telephone etc., as per resolution dated 15.12.1993.Subsequently, the said premises was allowed to be used by various companies of assessee's group w.e.f. 1.4.1994 at a fixed monthly charge provided in the agreement. The copy of agreement with West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., is placed on record. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The only issue arising in this appeal relates to the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 3,79,688.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are these: The assessee is 100 per cent subsidiary of M/s. Radhakrishna Hospitality Services Ltd. (RHSL). It is engaged in the business of providing catering, house-keeping and allied services to Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL). At this stage, it may be mentioned that such catering business was earlier carried on by Mr. Rui Smith, proprietor of M/s. Skyline Caterers. The agreement was entered into between the assessee and Mr. Rui Smith on 16-8-2000 for taking over the catering contract of M/s. Skyline Caterers with HLL with effect from 1-9-2000 against a consideration of Rs. 27 lakhs. Mr. Rui Smith had been carrying on such business for the last 30 years. The amount so paid by the assessee was reflected in its Balance Sheet as Goodwill, on which depreciation at the rate 25 per cent was claimed treating the same as intangible asset. In the course ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2002-03. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) XI at Mumbai dated 24-6-2003. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The first ground raised by the assessee in this appeal reads as follows: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) XI erred in confirming that the Appellant was not entitled to depreciation of Rs. 14,03,100 in respect of premium paid for acquiring office premises amounting to Rs. 1,40,31,000.3. The assessee had acquired office premises during the previous year under appeal, at Barodawala Mansion, Worli. The premises were acquired as tenants. As part of the deal, the assessee had paid the amount of Rs. 1,40,31,000 for acquiring the premises on perpetual lease. The amount was paid by the assessee to the outgoing tenants for vacating the premises earlier held by them. The owners of the property are not liable to...
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 : (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)779
1. These are the cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee which have been heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake convenience. First we take up the appeal of the assessee. We take up the assessee's first ground whether the lower authorities were justified in assessing the sum of Rs. 2,25,37,301/- under Section 41(2) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which represented the insurance claim received by the assessee.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The assessee started a windmill project in the assessment year 1996-97 by installing windmills for the purpose of generating electricity. The total cost of such windmills amounted to Rs. 2.8 crore. The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on this asset for the assessment year 1996-97 itself. Thus, the written down value (WDV) of the plant was reduced to nil. However, the said windmills were destroyed in the cyclone in assessment year 1999-2000 against which the assessee received a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 20-6-2006 of Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, Mumbai for the assessment year 2004-05. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, Mumbai (i) erred in holding that the assessee's building, "Bhau Mansion" was used for business, ignoring the fact that Bhau Mansion was let out and earned rental income which was declared and consistently assessed under the head "Income from house property" for the past 20 years, and that this classification of income consistently applied by the lower authorities could not be changed when there was no change in the facts of the case. (ii) erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,75,00,000 realized on the saleof the assessee's building "Bhau Mansion" attracted the provisionsof Section 50 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the said BhauMansion was a depreciable asset, ignoring the fact that Bhau Mansio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)113ITD14(Mum.)
1. These two appeals have been filed by two different assessees, namely, Bakliwal Corporate Services P. Ltd. (ITA No. 7804/M/2003) and Bakliwal Share & Stock P. Ltd. (ITA No. 7805/M/2003). Both the appeals relate to AY 2001-02 and involve common issues. We therefore find it convenient to dispose off both of them by a consolidated order. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer that the depreciation was not allowable on stock exchange card. The error in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer occurred on account of the following reasons:Vinay Bubna v. Stock Exchange, Mumbai 97, Comp. Cases 874 : 21, SCL, 216 and in Stock Exchange Ahmedabad v. ACIT 248 ITR 209 : 115 Taxman 471 have been rendered in a totally different context. b) The ld. CYT(A) has erred in confirming the view of the Assessing Officer that Section 47(xi) of the Income-tax Act is irrelevant. c) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the membership Card is in the natur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
The appeal by the assessee and the cross objection by the revenue is for the assessment year 1995-96.2. The effective ground urged by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the assessing officer that the sum of Rs. 18 crores paid as per agreements dated 10-1-1995 and 11-2-1995, is revenue expenditure, which should be allowed by spreading the deduction equally over the period of ten years, being period of tenure of the agreements. According to the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have allowed the entire amount as deduction for the assessment year under consideration. Further, the assessee is objecting the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anup Engg. Ltd. v. CIT and the decision of the Hon'blc Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT 3. Coming to the cross objection by the revenue, it is directed against the order of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)297ITR115(Mum.)
1. These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue for the Assessment Year 2001-02 are directed against the order of the CIT(A).These are being disposed of with this consolidated order.2. The Appellant M/s. Van Oord Dredging And Marine Contractors BV (formerly known as BALLAST HAM DREDGING BV)) is a company incorporated in The Netherlands and is an International Dredging Contractor. The assessee is a tax resident of The Netherlands. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 2001-02 the assessee executed contracts in India and for this purpose the assessee has maintained project/site offices in India established with the approval of the RBI.The assessee has filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2001-02 on 30.10.2001 returning a loss of Rs. 12.80 Crores. In the return of income, in computing the returned loss of Rs. 12.80 Crores the income of Rs. 30,78,70,463/- received in relation to the New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) project was reduced on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)106ITD408(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.7.2000 of CIT(A)-XLI, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal is as under: In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and particularly having regard to diverse submissions on record, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting claim of the appellant for grant of depreciation of Rs. 23,75,000/- w.r.t. cost of stock exchange card acquired, owned and used by the appellant as plant in the conduct of its business of sharebroking.2. The assessee is a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and the simple question involved in this appeal is as to whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation allowance Under Section 32 of the IT Act on the cost of the BSE membership card acquired by the assessee. The claim of the assessee has been disallowed by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the AO's finding. The ld. CIT(A) has referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sitalpur Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT 49 ITR 160...
Tag this Judgment!