Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2007)111TTJ(Ahd.)556
1. This appeal as well as the cross-objection arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30th May, 2006. The revenue has taken the following effective ground of appeal: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the interest of Rs. 3,58,632, levied under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the provisions of Section 201(1A) are on the statute and not amended retrospectively and hence the facts in this case and that of Star India (P) Ltd. v. CCE 2. The assessee in his cross-objections has has taken the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding the demand of Rs. 15,58,350 on account of TDS. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that having regard to the facts of the case, the decision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Ahd.)281
1. This Appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Baroda ["CIT(A)" for short] dated 05-08-ZOOS for the assessment year (AY) 1996-97.2. The only ground taken by the assessee relates to the disallowance of short term loss of Rs. 4,32,000/- claimed by the assessee on account of extinguishment of warrants.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has applied for 2,00,000 warrants and paid Rs. 2.70 per share (i.e., 5% of Rs. 54) as upfront payment. The assessee however exercised the said right with respect to 40,000 warrants only and right with respect to balance 1,60,000 warrants was extinguished, which the assessee claimed as short term loss. The AO disallowed the loss holding that the sale of warrants can not be treated as Capital Asset as per definition of Capital Asset given Under Section 2(14) of the Act.4. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee stated that in accordanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2007)111TTJ(Ahd.)593
1. As a result of difference of opinion between the Members constituting Division Bench, the following question was got referred to the Hon'ble President ITAT for the decision of Hon'ble third Member. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal would be justified in giving the directions to allow specific expenditure/allowance or the assessment requires setting aside for making de novo assessment? 2. The Hon'ble Vice-President in the capacity of Third Member has now decided the question referred to him as per his findings contained in paragraph No. 7 of order dated 10/04/2007, which reads as under: 7. the parties are heard. On a close reading of the proposed orders, I do not really find any difference between the two Members on the principle of allowing expenditure including depreciation. The Judicial Member has given specific direction to allow depreciation, if used for consultancy as well own project, In addition to full cost, if exclusively used for Gujarat Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2007)108ITD1(Ahd.)
1. Both these appeals by the revenue are against the orders of CIT(Appeals)-III, Ahmedabad dated 21-3-2001 and 19-1-2001 passed for assessment years 1998-99 & 1997-98 respectively wherein following grounds have been raised: (1) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 69,26,956 made by the Assessing Officer on account of contract receipt and technical consultancy fees. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. (3) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored to the above extent.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,06,413 made by the Assessing Officer on account of contract receipt and technical consultancy fees.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
1. These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 08-03-2004 passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment Year (AY) 1998-99. For the sake of convenience, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The original assessment in this case was made on 28-02-2001 determining the book profit Under Section 115JA at Rs. 7,44,47,214/-.The AO thereafter observed from the records that while computing the said book profit, following two mistakes have been crept: (i) Provision made for obsolescence loss of Rs. 51,92,565/- is not added back; and (ii) Reduction due to change in method of inventory of Rs. 98,09,000/- is not added back.3. Giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO concluded that to arrive at the book profit, the net profit is to be increased by the amount carried to any reserve, by whatever name called or the amount set-aside to the provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities. According to him, these two ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)112ITD1(Ahd.)
1. These appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the Assessees are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVII, Ahmedabad, for assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. There being identical sets of facts and circumstances, for the sake of convenience, we decide to dispose of these appeals and cross objections by this common order.2. The common grounds in these appeals by the Revenue is that CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in annulling the reassessment order passed Under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act as bad in law on the ground that no notice Under Section 143(2) which was to be issued within one year of filing of return of income was issued.3. The facts appearing in all cases are identical we therefore referring the facts in the case of Sukhini P Modi as a representative case. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 5.3.1997 for Asst. Year 1996-97 showing income at Rs. 1,65,951, which was processed by the Assessin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)298ITR140(Ahd.)
1. This is an appeal by the Assessee arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income fax (Appeals)-IV, Baroda, dated 11-1-2002. and the assessment years (AY) under reference is 1998-99.2. The appeal raises three effective issues, per its first two grounds, ail of which are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Baroda erred in law and on facts in not considering the commission payment Rs. 78,300/- being sales commission. 2. The Ld. CIT(a) iv, Baroda erred in law and on facts not granting claim for set-off of carry forward of business loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 6,16,055/- 3. The Ld. CIT (A)-IV, Baroda erred in law and on facts in confirming interest under Section 234B & 234C levied by A.O.3. Before we proceed to deal with the aforesaid grounds, we consider it relevant to set out the facts of the case as well as the opposing stands of the two parties.4.1 The assessee is a private limited company, limited by shares, incorporated under Part-IX...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
1. The facts and circumstances in both these appeals are identical excepting the quantum of disputed amount. These are therefore taken together for the sake of convenience and disposed of by a common order by discussing the fact and figures as are appearing in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. On a difference of opinion between the Accountant Member and Judicial Member, the following common point of difference is referred to me as Third Member by the President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Under Section 255(4) of the Act: Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case interest Under Section 201(1A) of I.T. Act, 1961 is chargeable from the date of payment of "usance interest" or from the date of pronouncement of decision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Ors.2. In a survey action carried out in cases of certain foreign banks, it was found that the assessee had remitted usance interest through these banks. This was paid in respect of outstanding amount of pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)112ITD307(Ahd.)
1. These are cross-appeals by assessee and Revenue against respective orders of CIT(A). Grounds raised in the appeals are as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,19,000/- under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of deposits obtained by the company from its employees/depositors. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not making any direction in his order with respect to sales tax of Rs. 70,78,961/- and excise duty of Rs. 2,34,124/- aggregating to Rs. 73,13,085/- for the exclusion of these amounts from indirect cost for computation of profits from trading exports Under Section 80HHC.2. Brief facts of the case regarding Ground No. 1 are - during the year in question, assessee received fixed deposits from more than 70 individuals majority of whom were employees of the assessee company, aggregating to Rs. 47,83,000/-. It shall be pertinent here to mention that all fixed deposits applications were made by the depositors with the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Ahd.)634
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 28/07/2000 for Asst. Year 1994-95. 1. The appellant facts aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A). The impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is against the documentary evidence filed before him and he failed to understand and appreciate the facts of the case and evidence put on the record. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding and confirming the asstt. Order that the deduction claimed of Rs. 10 lacs in respect of amount provided for to the unmarried daughter by the HUF for her maintenance & marriage out of the sale price of the residential house, in the computation of capital gain, was in the nature of application of income out of capital gain and it was not a case of diversion of income out of overriding title. Hence, the said deduction was not admissible. In doing so, the ld. CIT(A) appears to be confused between natural obligation of a father towards the education, maintenance & marriage of hi...
Tag this Judgment!