Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2007)107TTJ(Chennai)475
(1) that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim for depreciation in respect of assets transferred to the Clutch Unit. (2) that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the royalty payment of Rs. 2,29,500 and royalty on trademark of Rs. 20,000. (3) that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the claim of deduction under Section 80HH by excluding a sum of Rs. 4,86,000. (4) that the CIT(A) erred in including excise duty, sales-tax and scrap sales as part of the total turnover for computing the relief under Section 80HHC. (5) that the CIT(A) erred in excluding 90 per cent of interest, rent, interest on APSEB deposit and other income aggregating to Rs. 94,49,312 for the purpose of computing relief under Section 80HHC.2. After hearing both the parties, we find that the assessee was owner of the Clutch Unit at Hosur in Tamil Nadu which was transferred through an agreement dt. 20th Jan., 1997 to its subsidiary company and all assets and liabilities were also transferred to the subsidiary company against w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2007)103ITD457(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are emanating out of the order of the CIT(A)-III, Chennai, dt. 4th Oct., 2002. The assessment was framed by the AO under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1997-98.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel of the assessee made a mention during the course of hearing that the cross-objection of the assessee be taken first for hearing as the jurisdictional issues are raised by the assessee by way of cross-objections. The learned Departmental Representative agreed to this.3. The first issue in the cross-objection is regarding reopening of the assessment under Section 147 r/w Section 148 of the Act. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 26th Nov., 1997, which was revised on 18th March, 1998. The revised return was taken up for scrutiny by the AO by issuing notice under Section 143(2) and completed the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
1. These four appeals were filed by both the Department and the assessee, i.e., Appeal Nos. 1827 & 1828/Mds/1998 are filed by the Revenue against the common order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30.7.1998 for the Asst. Year 1996-97 under Section 201(1) and 210(1)(1) of the I.T. Act and Appeal No.1503/Mds/99 and No. 200/Mds/2001 are filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 19.1.99 under Section 201(1) & 201(1)(a) and against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30.1.2001 under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act, respectively, both for the Asst. year 1997-98.2. Since all the aforesaid appeals are connected with each other, and as common questions are involved and are based on the same facts and circumstances and parties being the same in all thee appeals, these appeals were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. Before proceeding to deal with these appeals, it would be appropriat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
1. In this appeal by the assessee the following grounds have been raised: (1) The Learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 45.4().61.871 Under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. 1961. (2) He failed to appreciate that appellant was under an obligation to deduct tax at source Under Section 195 of the Act from the income changeable under the Act and not from the gross payments made to the non residents. (3) He grossly erred in ignoring the provisions of Section 44BB of the Income-tax Act. 1961 to arrive at the income of the non residents to whom payments were made by the appellant company.2. The brief facts of the case are that during the year the assessee had made certain payments in foreign currency in pursuance of an agreement with ONGC and Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc.("HEPII" for short) to drill oil wells in Indian waters off the coast of India. For execution of these contracts, the assessee company had taken two drilling units. which were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2005)96ITD500(Chennai)
These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue and most of the issues involved are common. Therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.Before we proceed to decide individual appeals, we would like to note that principally there are three main issues for our adjudication and we think once these issues are determined, the appeals can be easily decided. Therefore, we proceed to examine these principal issues, which are as follows: (i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth-tax? (ii) Whether deduction of debt claimed is permissible under the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act? (i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth-tax? The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a sick industrial company and the company made a reference to Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR) under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)...
Tag this Judgment!