Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)663
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, dt. 9th May, 2001.2. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the amount of Rs. 1,15,70,000 received by the assessee is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt chargeable to tax.3. The assessee herein is a firm of chartered accountants carrying on profession as such. During the year the assessee has shown a sum of Rs. 1,15,70,000 in the capital account of the partners. This payment is stated to be received from Deloitte Touche Tohmatu International (DTTI). It was stated that the receipt is not taxable in its hand as it is capital receipt. The AO held the same as revenue receipt.4. Facts of this case are that Deloittee Touche Tohmatsu International (DTTI) is said to be one of the leading accounting firms in the world established under Swiss Verein engaged in the practice of public accountancy in various countries. The Verein consists of members that are professional firms and are engaged i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)102ITD189(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Department pertains to the assessment year 1993-94 and the only ground taken is as follows : Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in annulling the assessment order dated 28-3-2000 on the ground that the same is ab initio null and void although there were sufficient reasons to believe as recorded by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment before issuing notice under Section 148 of Income-Tax Act.2. The brief facts leading up to the appeal are these. The assessee is an individual. She filed her return of income declaring income of Rs. 5,25,050 on 30-6-1993 which was processed under Section 143(1)(a). The case was reopened on the ground that there was information that the assessee had made some payments for the purchase of a farm house which were not declared in the accounts. Notice was issued under Section 148 on 28-12-1995 but the proceedings were subsequently dropped on 24-10-1997.3. Thereafter the assessment was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)1036
1. In this appeal the assesses challenges the action of the learned CIT(A)-III, Delhi, in setting aside the order of the AO/Addl. CIT, Range 7, for the asst. yr. 2000-01.2. The facts of the case are that the assessment of the case was framed by the Addl. CIT, Range 7, vide his order dt. 31st March, 2003, computing the assessable income at Rs. Nil with unabsorbed depreciation Rs. 12,38,53,171 to be carried forward as against the claim of Rs. 16,85,15,018. This order was subjected to appeal on various issues before the learned CIT(A)-10, Delhi, who took decision vide his order dt. 7th Aug., 2003. On 31st Jan., 2004, appellant received a show-cause notice dt. 30th Jan., 2004, from learned CIT, Delhi-Ill. In the said notice the learned CIT expressed as to why the assessment made by the AO be not held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the following reasons : (i) Exemption under Section 10(33) was claimed by you in respect of the dividend income amounting to Rs. 46...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)93ITD561(Delhi)
1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner, Wealth Tax (Appeals)-XIX, New Delhi dated 25-10-2002 for the Assessment year 1997-98 on the following grounds:- 1. "That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in not holding that the reassessment under Section 17 of Wealth Tax Act was bad in law, beyond jurisdiction and void ab-intio. 1.21 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the Joint Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the Joint Commissioner of wealth Tax, Special Range-18, New Delhi (who exercised jurisdiction over the erstwhile Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited) had valid jurisdiction to reopen the completed assessment, even after the said company had merged with the appellant and ceased to exist. 1.22 That the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in holding that the Joint Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)74ITD350(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT, Delhi-VI, New Delhi, passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) and relates to the asst. yr. 1992-93.The assessee is an individual. He is a salaried employee and a shareholder in HCL Ltd. He was holding 2,20,542 shares of Rs. 10 each in HCL Ltd., which was a multi-unit company comprising of Computer Division CAD - CAM Division. Peripherals Division. Reprographics Division, Communication Division and Instrumentation Division.3. Hewlett Packard Company Ltd. of USA (hereinafter referred to as HP Co.) evinced interest in entering into a joint venture with HCL Ltd. in respect of computer business only. Under ss. 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, HCL Ltd. submitted a scheme of arrangement to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The scheme, inter alia, provided for : "(a) Transfer of the non-computer business to the new company, namely, HCL Hewlett Packard Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "HCL : ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)7ITD289(Delhi)
1. The departmental appeal and the cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1978-79.2. The main ground in the departmental appeal relates to the deletion of Rs. 99,00,000 which had been added by the IAC. The relevant facts regarding this issue are that the assessee-company ('GEC') had been working as the sole distributor for Motor Industries Company Ltd. ('MICO') regarding sale and service of its products and in certain territories in the northern part of India including Delhi. From 1964 to February 1976, this arrangement was carried on merely some ad hoc basis. On 10-2-1967, there was an agreement in writing between the assessee-company and MICO. The main features of this agreement were as under : (i) MICO appointing GEC as the sole distributor for spark plugs manufactured by it and of other product in the territorie specified in the northern region of India and Delhi. (ii) The products were to be purchased o...
Tag this Judgment!