Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. All these appeals by assessee are directed against the common order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi dated 27-2-2007.2. The appellant Rolls Royce (P) Ltd. Co. (RR Plc) is a company incorporated in United Kingdom ('UK') and is a tax resident of that country. The appellant is a non-resident foreign company for the purpose of its tax assessment in India. The appellant was not filing any return of income in India. It was found by the assessing officer that the appellant was supplying aero-engines and spare parts to Indian customers, mainly to M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Indian Navy and Indian Air force. On examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was of the view that the appellant was having a business connection in India under Section 9 of the Act as well as PE under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the 'Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement') between India and UK. The busi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)113CTR(Delhi)615
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. 154/2004-05 dt. 25th Aug., 2005 on the following ground: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 11,82,242 imposed by the AO under Section 221(1) without giving any convincing reasons for the same.2. Briefly stated the facts relating to the issue involved in the ground of appeal are that the assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 30th March, 1998 as per which demand of Rs. 56,87,640 was raised. The Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the AO. Even miscellaneous petition filed before the Tribunal was dismissed on 30th Aug., 2004. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant on 16th July, 2004. As a result of the order granting appeal effect to the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal, the total demand worked out to Rs. 1,16,17,005 out of which the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 25,00,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)906
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT, Moradabad dt. 31st March, 2005 for asst. yr. 2001-02, in the matter of order passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the learned CIT) has erred both in relation with the facts and features of the case of the appellant/assessee firm as well as in relation with the law (read with the relative ruling pronounced by the competent Courts) while initiating impugned proceedings under Section 263 vide notice dt. 27th Jan., 2005 and while issuing order under Section 263 dt. 31st March, 2005 wherein: (1) Deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB have been directed to be restricted by provisions of Sub-section (9A) of Section 80-IA which was non-existent in law, whereby desiring deduction under Section 80HHC to be computed/allowed with reference to resultant 'Income from business' after reducing deduction under Section 80-IB. that too without discussing and/or counteri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)986
1. In this appeal by the Department, the only ground taken is that the CIT(A) erred in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 35,51,000 imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.2. The assessee is a company. In respect of the assessment year under appeal, it filed return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 51,87,733 on 28th Nov., 1997. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on a loss of Rs. 49,73,323, which was revised under Section 154 to Rs. 51,60,935. Thereafter the return was picked up for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) were issued. Ultimately, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dt. 29th Feb., 2000.In this order, the AO computed the total income of the assessee in accordance with the normal provisions of the IT Act, which resulted in a positive income of Rs. 41,50,102 and after adjusting the losses brought forward from the earlier years, the total income was computed at nil and the net loss to be carried over to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 8-1-2004 for the assessment year 1999-2000, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of giving so many opportunities, the Bench, therefore, decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and considering the material placed on record.2. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and found that addition was made by the assessing officer by invoking the provisions of Section 59(1) of the Act. In respect of loan liability shown by the assessee in her balance sheet, the assessing officer observed that in some of the cases, the assessee had not filed confirmation or there is some difference in the amount shown by these persons in their respective statement of account. The assessing officer, therefore, invoked Section 59(1) of the Act and added a sum of Rs. 5,2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-9-2005. Although the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal but at the time of hearing ground Nos. 1, 4 and 7 were not pressed and, therefore, the Sctme stand dismissed as not pressed. The only grounds remains for adjudication are given as under: 2. That the Hon'ble Coramissioner (Appeals) has erred in facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 16,25,000 made by the learned assessing officer treating the amount of unsecured loans received from depositors as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,255,000 made by the learned assessing officer towards unsecured loans received from the following depositors as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to adjudicate on the issue of levying of interest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)881
1. The cross-appeals for asst. yr. 2000-01 and other two appeals of the assessee for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative. Therefore, a consolidated order is passed.2. The only ground taken in this appeal is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,49,39,41,578, made by the AO on account of bad debt claimed in respect of the debt due from M/s Koshika Telecom Ltd. (KTL).In this connection, it is mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee claimed bad debt of about Rs. 249.94 crores by debiting this amount to P&L a/c. It was submitted that a sum of about Rs. 249.35 crores was receivable from the KTL in respect of supply of equipments, sale of cellular exchange equipments and related services on a deferred credit basis. The KTL defaulted on the payment schedule right from the beginning. Aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)561
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dt. 31st July, 2003 of CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1997-98. The only dispute raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessment for asst.yr. 1997-98 had been made by the AO ex parte under Section 144 on dt.8th Feb.,2000. The assessee in the return of income had shown gross loss of Rs. 1,59,947 from business after claiming expenses for Rs. 67,780. In the absence of bills and vouchers as the books were not produced before him, the AO disallowed the gross loss and the expenses and determined the total income at Rs. 2,63,685. The assessee had also shown loans taken at Rs. 3,62,300 which were treated by AO as income under Section 68 in the absence of any details and evidence. The total income was thus determined at Rs. 6,25,925. Though the assessee had dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These appeals, pertaining to one assessee, were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Departmental Representative and the learned Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, a consolidated order is passed. It may be mentioned here that the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the assessing officer in respect of both the appeals, while the learned Counsel for the assessee argued his case at length.2. The revenue has taken two grounds to the effect that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of '(i) Rs. 2,75,10,589 on account of royalty payment for specific software by admitting fresh evidence in violation of rule 46-A, and (ii) Rs. 52,10,200 on account of liabilities continued for the last three years.2.1 In connection with royalty payments, it is mentioned in the assessment order under the head "Repairs and maintenance" that certain expenditure aggregating to Rs. 5,22,82,485 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)565
1. These are appeals by assessee and Revenue against Order dt. 26th April, 2005 of CIT (A)-X, New Delhi, relating to asst. yr. 1996-97.2. Ground Nos. 1 to 1.5 in appeal of the assessee and grounds of appeal of the Revenue can be conveniently decided together. Ground Nos. 1 to 1.5 raised by the assessee read as follows: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allowing payment of export commission only to the extent of 5 per cent of FOB value of exports as against 12.5 per cent invoking provisions of Section 40A(2) of the IT Act, even while observing that the foreign collaborator was instrumental for promotion of export sales achieved by the appellant. 1.1.1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that increase in payment of export commission to 12.5 per cent from 5 per cent to nominee/affiliates of the collaborator of the appellant was excessive and unreasonable and the action of the AO in invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2) and Section 92 of the Act was jus...
Tag this Judgment!