Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)933
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 20th Jan., 2006 passed by the CIT(A), Ghaziabad confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) the Act for asst. yr. 2001-02.2. Briefly stated facts are that during the assessment proceedings it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had shown gift of Rs. 5 lacs from Shri Sunil Jain. The AO made inquiries about the genuineness and to examine the creditworthiness and other components of the gift of the donor, the assessee was asked to produce the donor, but the assessee failed to produce the donor on one pretext or the other in spite of affording several opportunities to her. Therefore, the assessee was afforded final opportunity. The assessee vide her letter dt. 7th Jan., 2004 surrendered an amount of Rs. 5 lacs in order to buy peace and to avoid litigation subject to the condition of no penalty. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs. 5 lacs treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. On appeal, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)676
1. This appeal by the Revenue for asst. yr. 2001-02 arises out of the Order of learned CIT (A)-IX, New Delhi.The only issue for consideration relates to deleting the addition on account of provisions for doubtful debts of Rs. 32, 43,895. The facts of the case stated in brief are that assessment under Section 143(3) for the year under consideration was made on 17th March, 2004 accepting the returned income filed by the assessee. The AO issued notice under Section 154 to disallow the provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to P&L a/c claimed by the assessee based on RBI guidelines for Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC). During the course of rectification proceedings under Section 154, it was pleaded by the assessee that the assessee being a Non-Banking Financial Company was bound by NBFC Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998 issued by the RBI vide notification dt. 31st Jan., 1998 and accordingly made provision on account of bad and doubtful debts following these gu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)304ITR285(Delhi)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the CIT (A), New Delhi, passed in Appeal No. 61/03-04, dated 24.1.2005, on as many as seven grounds.2. The Ground Nos. 3 and 4 relate to disallowance of an amount of Rs. 21,22,091/- in view of provisions of Section 40(a)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Ground No. 5 relates to confirmation of disallowance of.Rs. 6,81,840/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- by the CIT (A) holding the same in the nature of Head Office Expenditure as envisaged under Section 44C of the Act.3. However, at the out set of the appellate proceedings, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal may not be disposed off on merits as raised in Ground Nos. 3 and 4 but the assessee's appeal may be only disposed off on legal issue as involved in Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee regarding the non-service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within a period of limitation and so assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order dated 5/12/2006 of the learned. Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi, relating to the assessment year 1998-99.2. I have gone through the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue and I find that the tax effect in the instant appeal is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. In view of CBDT Instructions No. 2 dated 24-10-2005, the department should not have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in the above circular had asked all officers of the Income-tax department under their control not to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunal in cases where the tax effect involved in appeal did not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs. These instructions in question are binding on all departmental authorities and they could not be by passed and treated as of no consequence on the pretext that these were private only, and the authorities are bound to follow, comply with and see that the policies laid down by the Board achieve their objective...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)111ITD287(Delhi)
1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (In short 'the CIT(A)'), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1998- 99 and the following question has been referred to this Special Bench for its decision : Whether, the non-compete fee received by the assessee from FI Plc., U.K. is not liable to tax being in the nature of capital receipt? 2. The material facts relevant to the question referred to this Bench are that the assessee was a Computer Engineer associated with Software and Information Technology. He was the promoter and founder of as well as the Managing Director in one Software Company, viz M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd. He held 8,66,450 shares of the said company. The said company was agreed to be taken over by the FI Group Plc. UK and as per the shares purchase agreement dated 4.12.1997 entered into by the U.K. company with the shareholders of M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd, including the assessee, 76% of the subscribed equity capital ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (In short 'the CIT(A)'), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1998-99 and the following question has been referred to this Special Bench for its decision: Whether, the non-compete fee received by the assessee from FI Plc, U.K. is not liable to tax being in the nature of capital receipt 2. The material facts relevant to the question referred to this Bench are that the assessee was a Computer Engineer associated with Software and Information Technology. He was the promoter and founder of as well as the Managing Director in one Software Company, viz M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd. He held 8,66,450 shares of the said company. The said company was agreed to be taken over by the FI Group Pic. UK and as per the shares purchase agreement dated 4.12.1997 entered into by the U.K. company with the shareholders of M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd, including the assessee, 76% of the subscribed equity capital was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)914
1. This appeal is by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt.30th Aug., 2005 pertaining to the financial year 2001-02. In this appeal, the primary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is in default under Sections 201 and 201 (1A) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for the impugned financial year in spite of the fact that in the immediately financial year, the Tribunal had adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee.2. Briefly stated the circumstances leading upto the present proceedings can be understood as follows. The assessee before us is a university which was inter alia deducting tax at source on salaries and other benefits paid to its teaching as well as non-teaching staff. The AO noted that the assessee was providing accommodation to its teaching and non-teaching staff and in turn it was charging standard rent for the aforesaid accommodation. The standard rent, depending on the type of accommodation allotted to an emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)304ITR44(Delhi)
1. This Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble President for considering and deciding the following question which incorporates the only issue arising from the appeal of the assessee which is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, dt. 13th Feb., 2001: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned AO in respect of the disallowance of Rs. 1,57,95,000 on account of loss on sale of debentures.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the controversy are as follows. The assessee is an investment company which filed its return of income for the year under appeal on 19th Nov., 1996 declaring a total income at a negative figure i.e. loss of Rs. 2,07,98,394. In the said return, income from interest and dividend was shown by the assessee at Rs. 1,24,68,142 and Rs. 16,19,488, respectively whereas loss on sale of debentures was shown at Rs. 1,57,94,206. In Sch. 8 to the balance sheet and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)297ITR228(Delhi)
1. The Special Bench has been constituted Under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the recommendation of regular bench to dispose of the following issue: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, tax paid by the employer on the income of the assessee is entitled to exemption Under Section 10( 10CC) of the Income-tax Act? The Special Bench constituted vide order dated September 7, 2007 is to dispose of entire appeal / appeals, referred to the Bench.2. The facts leading to the constitution of Special Bench are that after the introduction of clause (10CC) in Section 10 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 by the Finance Act, 2002, it was claimed by the assessee as an employee that where the employer has paid tax on the salary of the employee, the tax on such tax as perquisite is exempt under the above provision. In other words, it is not possible to have double grossing up. However, Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s B.J. Services Co. Middle East Ltd did not accept th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)112ITD79(Delhi)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT (A) passed in appeal No. 34/2006-07/CIT (A)-XX dated 30-3-2007 on the following grounds: 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of claim of mobilization and demobilization expenses of Rs. 8,65,57,909/-, reimbursed by the appellant to Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV, Netherlands, (VOAMC), invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) did not apply, since the aforesaid amount reimbursed by the appellant did not constitute income of VOAMC liable to tax in India and consequently the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. 2.1 Without prejudice, that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that ...
Tag this Judgment!