Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)8ITD67(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals, the assessment year involved is 1968-69 and the valuation date is shown as 31-3-1968. WT Appeal No. 1606 (Delhi) of 1980 is by the assessee, an individual/resident while WT Appeal No.1590 (Delhi) of 1980 is by the revenue.2. The assessee is aggrieved on the score that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 4,12,793 being the compensation received in the later years, since the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the compensation accrued to the assessee during the assessment year under appeal. The revenue is aggrieved on the score that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,46,550 made by the WTO on account of the intended compensation to be received by the assessee from the Government for his land at Patparganj which has been acquired by the Government.3. The facts briefly stated and as found out from the assessment order dated 26-3-1979 are as under: The assessee has claimed in part 4 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)16ITD615(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the revenue before us, is with a grievance that the learned AAC, New Delhi, erred in holding, in his order dated 9-12-1983, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of Section 49(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were applicable to the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81 and as such the capital gains of Rs. 91,723 worked out by the ITO and included in the total income of the assessee on sale of jewellery disposed of by the assessee during the year under appeal were not taxable.2. We have heard the parties in extenso on this issue. In order to appreciate their respective grievances we first record the facts which are relevant for the determination of the issue before us and which are not in dispute. The assessee, Smt. Sharda Seshadri, is the wife of Shri P. Rama Seshadri. Shri P. Rama Seshadri had a brother named Shri P.V.Acharya. In other words Shri Rama Seshadri and Shri P.V. Acharya were full blooded real ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)20ITD273(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the department directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and relates to the assessment year 1982-83. As the points involved in these two appeals are common, the appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. In the assessee's appeal the first two grounds have not been pressed and they are, therefore, rejected.3. Ground No. 3 and its various parts relate to an issue which is also covered by the ground in the departmental appeal. The assessee is a private limited company which derives income from exploitation and distribution rights acquired in certain films. The assessee-company was also a partner in the firm named VIP films of Bombay. The assessee had purchased distribution rights of the Hindi feature film 'Kranti' for Delhi and Uttar Pradesh Circuit for a consideration Rs. 90,01,000. The film had been produced by the firm VIP films of Bombay and they had gifted the distribution rights in Delhi and UP to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)20ITD643(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by the purchasers of property being land and building forming part of plot No. 56, Block No. 10, Golf Links, New Delhi, which has been ordered to be acquired under Section 269F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned departmental representative and have perused the material placed before us.3. Shri Amar Kumar Kapoor and Shri Ram Kapoor, sons of Gurandatta Kapoor were the owners of the aforesaid property which was sold by them to the present appellants Iqbal Chand Khurana and Ashwani Khurana, who are father and son respectively, by a sale deed dated 21-8-1984. Prior to the execution of the sale deed, an agreement to sell had been executed by the aforesaid vendors in favour of the vendees on 7-2-1984.The property in question is situate on leasehold land measuring 1250 sq. yards. The lessor is the Government of India. A lease deed dated 16-8-1962 was executed on behalf of the President of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)27ITD519(Delhi)
1. An interesting point has been raised in this appeal. To appreciate it, let us note the facts first. The assessee is a private limited company, carrying on the business of plying trucks for carrying the goods from one place to the other in India. Its accounting period for the asst. year under consideration commenced on 1-7-1979 and ended on 30th June, 1980. It filed its return of income on 30th June, 1981 declaring total loss of Rs. 10,97,817 which was later revised upwards to Rs. 11,04,421.2. While scrutinising the various claims made by the assesses for deduction from the gross receipts for the year under consideration, he noted that the assessee had made claim of Rs. 11,56,106 on account of accident to a truck belonging to the assessee bearing No. RSY 6367. One of the sister concerns of the assessee-company namely M/s. Green Roadways Ltd. and hired the aforesaid truck of the assessee for carrying the goods; of its customers which it had booked in Gujarat.The said truck met with a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)41ITD147(Delhi)
Even if there is a finding given in income-tax assessment and even assuming that that finding had become final, still that only pertains to the income-tax assessment namely that no business was carried on but that does not mean that the building ceased to be used for business purposes. If the building was so ceased to be used for business purposes, depreciation also would not have been allowed or would have been withdrawn. Therefore, non-user of the building in a particular year does not render the building used for business purposes to be a building used for a purpose other than business unless it was proved that the directors were using the building for residential purposes.The Commissioner of Wealth Tax was not justified in setting aside the assessment under section 25.1. The appellant-assessee, by its present appeal, challenges the order dated March 24, 1988, of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax, New Delhi, framed under Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)34ITD58(Delhi)
1. These 4 appeals, filed by the assessee arise out of the consolidated order dated 24-6-1986 of the learned Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, Ghaziabad for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1984-85.2. The assessee M/s. Vasant Chitra Mandir is a registered firm. It had raised a loan from its sister concern namely M/s. Khacherumal Vishnu Swarup, Naya Ganj, Ghaziabad for the construction of a cinema hall and had agreed to pay interest thereon. However, the Income-tax Officer found that the assesseehad not deducted tax on the amount of interest credited on various dates in terms of Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the details thereof being as follows:- Year due on the said loan1981-82 Rs. 19,67,333 Rs. 2,48,320 What the assessee did for all these assessment years in question was that instead of crediting the amounts of interest mentioned in column No. 3 above to the account of the creditor M/s. Khacherumal Vishnu Swarup, credited the same to "Interest payable account" and showed thes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)34ITD241(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's second appeal arising out of its assessment for assessment year 1981-82. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee Shri C.S. Agarwal, Advocate assisted by Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate and Shri D.R. Bahl, Chartered Accountant and the learned standing counsel Shri Rajendra for the Revenue assisted by Shri D.C.Taneja, Advocate.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of soft drink concentrates of the drinks Campa Cola, Campa Orange and Campa Lemon. The concentrate is sold by the assessee to 28 franchise holders who convert the concentrate into liquid drinks for public consumption and sell the soft drinks in the market. Out of the 28 Franchise holders (hereinafter called bottlers) six private limited companies are controlled by the same Directors and have been described by the authorities below, without controversion by the assessee, as the sister concerns of the assessee. One of them is M/s Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. The relationship of the assessee with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)54ITD241(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal of the Accountable Persons challenging the order dated 20-3-1991 of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Lucknow as erroneous on facts and in law. (a) Shri Shaukat Shah Khan, the deceased, died on 20th January, 1975 in London. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held that the deceased was domiciled in India, but not a British domicile as claimed on the basis of the judgment dated 12-3-1982 of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, and assessed the duty on the estate of the deceased in the foreign property. (b) In the Estate of the Indian property, he took the value of half share of the deceased in Kothi and land at 122, Civil Lines in Bareilly in the sum of Rs. 13,63,042 valued by the Government-approved valuer for the entire property by rejecting to adopt the value in its place at Rs. 12,38,397.05 being the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the entire property. (c) Further, the claim of exemption of Rs. 1,00,000 under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)54ITD153(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A), XI, New Delhi on the following grounds :- 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has erred to disallow Rs. 31,05,000 as bad debts claimed by the appellant which is against the fact of the case and bad in law. 2. Without prejudice, the said loss of Rs. 31,05,000 is a trading loss and CIT(A) has erred to disallow the same. 3. The 1d. CIT(A) has erred to disallow entertainment expenditure of Rs. 20,638. 4. The 1d. CIT(A) has erred in not disposing off the ground of appeal regarding interest paid of Rs. 46,133. The said disallowance was wrong and totally uncalled for.2. The assessee filed duplicate return of income on 12-1-1990 declaring total income of Rs. 12,87,750. The assessee-firm was having income from business and house property and the business consisted of sale of flats in the building called Devika Tower. The Assessing Officer noted from the partners' account that there was withdrawal of capital and at the same time the firm h...
Tag this Judgment!