Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1988-89, in the matter of imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that assessee was in receipt of enhanced compensation amounting to Rs. 96,276 from Haryana Urban Development Authority as a result of award of Additional District & Session Judge, Faridabad, the assessing officer stated that the assessee filed his return of income on 20-4-2001, wherein he has offered enhanced compensation and claimed deductions under Section 48(2), and the net capital gain has been declared at Rs. 40,639. The gross capital gain declared in the return was accepted by the assessing officer. With regard to the interest on enhanced compensation, the assessing officer observed that the assessee received interest on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)775
The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. 135/05-06/GGN dt. 2nd May, 2006 on 4 grounds of appeal mainly raising the issue whether the assessee is entitled to the refund of Rs. 4 lakhs together with interest paid in pursuant to the directions of Tribunal issued during the stay proceedings and due to the final order of Tribunal in which the assessment framed by the AO in the treatment of Rohtas (HUF) has been held to be null and void.1. Briefly stated the facts relating to the issue are that the an assessment Under Section 147 was framed by the AO vide order dt. 14th March, 2002 at an income of Rs. 70,47,356, against which an appeal was preferred by the assessee before Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dt. 29th Sept., 2004 annulled the assessment framed against the assessee, Shri Rohtas, in the status of Rohtas (HUF). Thereafter, the assessee moved an application Under Section 154 before the AO alleging therein that the effect of the said ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These are appeals filed by the assessee and they are directed against two separate orders of CIT (A) dated 21.12.2006 for assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Grounds of appeal read as under: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the order dated 28.02.06 passed by the AO Under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in not holding that the impugned order dated 28.02.06 is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed since the initiation of the reassessment proceedings was based on a mere change of opinion. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in not holding that the impugned order dated 28.02.06 is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed since the proceedings Under Section 147 of the Act were initiated without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders dated 28-10-2005 of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2006-07. As the issue raised is common, all these appeals are being disposed of by a single consolidated order. The only issue raised which is common in all these appeals is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was justified legally to direct the assessee to deduct tax at source in respect of payments made to M/s. Project Systems International Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'PSIL') the foreign contractor.2. The facts of the case in brief are that that the assessee company which is engaged in the business of operating and maintaining hotels was constructing Lodhi Hotel at New Delhi. For this purpose, the assessee had entered into an agreement dated 14-2-2003 with PSIL under which the latter was required to render project management services in relation to construction of the said hotel. The various ser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)155
1. All these appeals by the assessees in the cases of Fine Investments (P) Ltd. and Handsome Investments (P) Ltd. are directed against orders of learned CIT(A), Ghaziabad. The cross-appeals by assessee as well as by Revenue in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. are arising out of the orders of learned CIT(A)-r, New Delhi dt. 15th Dec, 2003. Since the issues in all these appeals are inter-related all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. The primary issue to be decided is whether the appellants Fine Investments (P) Ltd. and Handsome Investments (P) Ltd. should be treated as merely paper or dummy entities and are conduits of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. To understand the factual position in all the appeals, the brief facts are narrated herein.3. Fine Investments (P) Ltd. ("FIPL") was incorporated on 20th Oct., 1989 (during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1990-91) with the object of carrying on business of an investment company. FIPL is an investment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) XXII, New Delhi dated 9-7-2004.2. The only issue in appeal is regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 6,00,000 being amount received as gift from one Shri Raman Kumar.3. During the year the assessee was stated to have received a gift of Rs. 6 lakhs from Mr. Raman Kumar. The gift deed was executed on 16-1-2000 which was filed along with a photocopy of affidavit of the donor. The assessee also filed copy of bank account of donor. The gift was received by two cheques of Rs. 3 lakhs each dated 5-7-2000 and 24-7-2000 drawn on Vijay Bank, Bhorgarh, Delhi. The assessing officer recorded the statement of Mr. Raman Kumar, donor as well as Mr. Sunil Mittal donee, the assessee. Mr. Raman Kumar in his statement before the assessing officer stated that Mr. Sunil Mittal, donee had helped him in various times. At one time he met with an accident when nobody came to help him, Mr. Sunil Mittal the assessee helped him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order 26-12-2004 passed by Learned Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi for assessment year 1999-2000. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessing officer's act of adding a sum of Rs. 6,40,892 as long-term capital gain under Section 45. Whereas the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 7,66,848 as capital receipt from sale of his 'Personal Effects' being his collection of rare postal stamps & covers, and 'Personal Effects' are excluded from the definition of capital asset under Section 2(14)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessing officer's act of adding a sum of Rs. 6,40,892 as long-term capital gain under Section 45. When as per the order of assessing officer cost of acquisition being NIL, computation of capital gain under Section 48 is not possib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These cross appeals by revenue as well as by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), XXVI, New Delhi, dated 9-7-2004.2. The assessee is an individual deriving income by way of salary from various companies in which he is a Director. He also receives income from house property, income from business in the form of interest from partnership firm and income from other sources. During the year the assessee has also declared long-term capital loss on sale of house property.3. We firstly take up the appeal of the revenue. The first ground of appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 60,000 on account of conveyance expenses.3.1 The assessee declared salary from M/s. Panchsheel Properties Pvt.Ltd. of a sum of Rs. 1,80,000. In the salary certificate issued by the company a sum of Rs. 2,40,000 was stated to be paid to the assessee as remuneration. Tax was also deducted at source on such sum of Rs. 2,40,000. When the assessee was asked to explain the disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)989
1. This appeal filed by the assesses who is an individual relates to the asst. yr. 2001-02 and arises out of the best judgment order passed under Section 144 of the IT Act on 8th March, 2004. The assessee carries on business in electronic detonators in the name and style of M/s Ram Singh & Co.3. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are to the effect that the assessment is to be quashed since it has been framed without serving the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. The return was filed on 31st Oct., 2001. Notice under Section 143(2), therefore, ought to have been served on the assessee on or before 31st Oct., 2002. A notice was issued on 25th Oct., 2002 and it was served by affixture on 31st Oct., 2002. The assessee challenges the notice on the ground that it has not been properly served and since no other notice was served on him before the aforesaid date, the assessment should be quashed on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)464
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 21st Sept., 2004 passed by learned CIT(A), Panchkula, for the asst. yr.2001-02.2. The first ground of appeal states that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,75,000 on account of legal and professional charges.3. Briefly stated, facts are that assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of auto components. During the year under consideration the assessee company made payment of Rs. 4,75,000 to IL & FS Merchant Banking Services Ltd., for placement of preference shares of the company and claimed the same as business expenses under the head 'Legal and professional charges'. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain as to why the same should not be disallowed as non-business expenses. The assessee did not file any reply in this regard. The AO, therefore, treated the fees for pla...
Tag this Judgment!