Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2002)80ITD202(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 20th April, 1993 for the asst. yr. 1990-91 confirming the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative. We have perused the material on record and gone through the case laws relied upon by both the parties. The assessee has filed this appeal mainly on the following grounds : (1) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. (2) The CIT(A) has erred in his finding that the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. (3) The CIT(A) has failed to note that the assessee has never denied having commenced trial production during the asst. yr. 1990-91. (4) The CIT(A) has failed to note that as a gesture towards avoidance of litigation, the assessee agreed to the disallowance of the depreciation and investment allowance claimed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2002)83ITD159(Chennai)
1. The assessee, in his capacity as an individual has filed this petition praying for stay of demand of tax of Rs. 78,29,323 that has raised on him consequent to an assessment that is framed on him with reference to the provisions contained in Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessment has been framed under Section 158BC of the Act consequent to a search made on his premises. The assessee had filed a return consequent to a notice that was issued to him indicating therein the undisclosed income at Rs. 63,93,720. The assessee was assessed for undisclosed income of Rs. 2,06,21,470 and a tax demand of Rs. 1,23,72,882 was raised on 29th Oct., 1997. The assessee in his petition for stay of demand of tax had mentioned that the tax of Rs. 45,43,559 had been paid leaving a balance tax of Rs. 78,29,323. This balance tax, the assessee by means of this petition prays for stay on the recovery by the Department.2. The Departmental Representative Mr. Naray...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2002)83ITD473(Chennai)
1. The assessee, a partnership concern has filed these two appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT for short) passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dt. 25th Feb., 1992. The appellant firm in both these appeals had challenged the orders of CIT on the exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Act as barred by limitation. The challenge is also on merits concerning the depreciation allowable on earth moving machinery. Considering the common issues involved, the appeals were grouped and heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Mr. Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant firm contended that the challenge of invoking of the jurisdiction by the CIT as barred by limitation is clearly borne out of his order. He contended that CIT refers to the order made by the Assessing Officer (AO for short) dt. 31st July, 1989, and states that he proposes to revise the said order. The purpose of revising...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2003)86ITD373(Chennai)
As these two appeals preferrred by the Revenue against the appellate order dated 22-3-1995 of Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, Madras for the two successive assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in the case of the assessee Mrs. Vanishree Karunakaran, Madras, consisted of common grounds of appeal, the same were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The common grounds of appeal by the Revenue read as under: - 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that there was only a lull in the business of the assessee during the period under consideration and that the business must be considered to have been continued. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that AVK Industries had suspended its manufacturing activity as early as in 1989 and the expenditure claimed during the year under consideration was just the interest on bank loans outstanding. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to giv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
1. These appeals are by the Revenue directed against the orders of the learned CIT(A), Coimbatore, dt. 18th Feb., 1992, and 15th June, 1992.3. The first common ground in all these four appeals relates to the directions given by the learned CIT(A) that grant of allowances by way of either additional depreciation or under Section 80-I or as investment allowance for the assessment years under appeal shall not be withdrawn.4. At the time of hearing of these appeals it was brought to our notice that similar issue came for consideration of this Tribunal, in the assessee's own case, in ITA Nos. 3946/Mad/1989 & 3147 & 3148/Mad/1990 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1988-89 dt. 29th April, 1997, wherein following its earlier order in ITA No. 1798/Mad/1988 relating to the asst. yr. 1983-84, in the assessee's own case, came to the following conclusion : "We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The undisputed findings of the CIT(A) are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2002)83ITD383(Chennai)
1. The assessee is an individual and he has filed this appeal against the order of assessment framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 11(3), Chennai (AO for short) dated 3-12-1998. The said appeal is against the assessment that has been framed under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee in his grounds of appeal had sought for quashing of the assessment on the ground of limitation and has also raised issues concerning the merits of various items included as undisclosed income that totals to Rs. 2,44,91,270.2. The premises of the assessee was searched under Section 132 of the Act on 24-9-1996 and cash, jewellery, documents, etc., came to be seized. Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 158BC of the Act on 6-12-1996 and the assessee on 14-12-1996 received this notice.The assessee however did not file any return in response to the said notice. Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment and in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2002)83ITD614(Chennai)
1. The assessee is an individual and has prayed for stay of demand of tax raised on him consequent to assessment framed under Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prayer for stay of tax is of Rs. 56,698,100 has been moved by an application filed on 15th Feb., 2000, and is stated as based on an appeal filed on 9th Sept., 1998.2. The prayer of the appellant for stay of tax is based on an order of the TRO-I, Central, Chennai, dt. 28th Aug., 2000, that stated for the foreclosure of fixed deposits for adjustment against dues recoverable from him. The appellant had also filed the order of rejection of stay by the Assessing Officer (AO for short) that is dt. 15th Jan., 1998.3. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sridhar had placed on our records the statement showing the events connected with the assessment proceedings and that followed it, According to this statement the admitted tax on the income-tax return was paid on 9th Sept., 1998, and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2003)86ITD602(Chennai)
1. The assessee, a non-banking financial company, has filed these two appeals aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - II, Chennai [CIT(A) for short] dated 9-11-1998 and 27-7-1999 respectively. These two appeals involve a common issue that is concerned with the claim for deduction from total income the provision made for doubtful advances categorized as Non-Performing Assets under the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India [RBI for short] covering all Non-Banking Financial Companies [NBFC for short]. The issues in both appeals involve appreciation of the concept of income and its computation with reference to the provisions of Income-tax Act,1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. Considering the fact that the appeals involve a common issue, the two appeals are grouped together, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. There are few issues in both the appeals that are specific to an assessment year and by means of this order we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2002)83ITD748(Chennai)
1. The assessee, a non-resident company, incorporated in Japan, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai [CIT(A) for short]. The grievance of the appellant-company is that CIT(A) in his order dt. 29th July, 1992, had held that the lump sum amount received by it from the Indian company M/s Rane Brake Linings Ltd. (RBL for short) is royalty by enhancing the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer, [AO for short]. AO, while framing the assessment under the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), had held that two-third was royalty and one-third was fee for technical services. The plea of the assessee in the present appeal is that the amount received is fees for technical services.2. The issue as raised in appeal is one of interpretation of the collaboration agreement. The manner in which the lower authorities had interpreted the said agreement and the appreciation of the facts as it emerges from the orders of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2003)81TTJ(Mad.)507
1. In view of the common grounds involved in these two appeals by the same assessee, they are consolidated in a common order for the sake of convenience. These appeals have been filed by the assessee M/s Durametallic (India) Ltd., Karapakkam village, Chennai, against the orders passed by the CIT(A)-I, Madras, for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. The dispute in these appeals is regarding the manner of computation of double income-tax relief under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between the Government of India and the Government of Singapore. During the previous years relevant for the asst. yrs.1987-88 and 1988-89 the assessee was in receipt of royalty from M/s Durametallic Asia Ltd., Singapore. The assessee being a resident, the income by way of royalty from the foreign concern was includible in its total income, On the royalty amount the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80-0 of the IT Act to the extent of 50 per cent of the income so received and br...
Tag this Judgment!