Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
B.R. Mittal, JM. Assessee has filed this appeal against order of Assessing Officer dated 27.10.2010 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that assessee is an Indian Company and it is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson Inc. US who is holding 75% shares and the balance 25% are held by Deputy Medical Private Limited, India. The assessee-company is dealing in various products which are either manufactured by assessee or traded on account of local purchases or foreign purchases. 3. Before we proceed to adjudicate this appeal, we consider it relevant to state that, we heard the appeal on 14.10.2013. However, while going through the order of TPO, it was observed that TPO in his order for the assessment year under consideration and while suggesting adjustments to be made in respect of the payment of royalty by the assessee on technical know-how as well as brand usage etc stated that similar disallowances were also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Sanjay Arora, A. M.: 1. This is a set of four Appeals, being cross appeals for assessment year (A.Y.) 2007- 08 and an appeal by the Revenue for A.Y. 2005-06, challenging the appellate orders by the first appellate authority for the relevant years, and another appeal by the assessee contesting the revision order u/s.263 in respect of its assessment for A.Y. 2007-08. The appeals raising common issues were listed for hearing and, accordingly, heard together, and are being disposed of vide a common, consolidated order. We shall proceed year wise. Revenue's Appeal (in ITA No.3821/Mum/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06) 2. The only issue in the Revenue's appeal for this year is the allowance of deduction u/ss. 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The matter was argued before us as covered by the decision by the apex court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), having been since followed by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07 (in ITA No.2731/Mum/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Sanjay Arora, A. M.: 1. This is an Appeal by the Revenue agitating against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Thane ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 29.06.2012, partly allowing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2007-08 vide order dated 31.12.2010. 2. Explaining the background facts of the case, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee's counsel, that the assessment in the instant case was framed on the basis and the premise that the assessee is not registered u/s.12AA of the Act, and is thus not liable to be recognized as a charitable institution under the Act. 2 The assessee's appeal against the withdrawal of its registration as a charitable institution under the Act stood disposed of by the tribunal (in ITA No.6509/Mum/2007 dated 14.05.2010/PB pgs.5-14) by restoring the matter back to the file of the competent authority...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Sanjay Arora, A. M.: 1. This is a set of two Miscellaneous Petitions/Applications by the Revenue in respect of a combined order u/s.254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment years (A.Y.) 2006-07 and 2007-08. 2. The tribunal having dismissed the Revenue's Appeals in limine, i.e., as not maintainable in view of the provision of section 268A of the Act, has moved the present applications, claiming that inasmuch as the tribunal states of doing so by following Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 by CBDT (copy on record) prescribing a monetary limit of Rs.3 lacs for appeals by the Revenue before the appellate tribunal, its order is internally inconsistent, as the said Instruction, vide para 11 thereof, clearly states of the being applicable only to appeals filed on or after the date of its issue, i.e., 09.02.2011. The instant appeals having been filed on 02.12.2010, i.e., prior thereto, the said Instruction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Sanjay Arora, A. M.: 1. This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 29.12.2011, partly allowing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09 vide order dated 16.12.2010. The appeal raises five issues per its five grounds, which we shall take up in seriatim. 2. The first issue is with regard to the addition in the sum of Rs.28,04,95,352/- u/s.41(1) r.w.s. 28(iv) of the Act on account of the waiver of old loans allowed to the 2 assessee by the lender, IDBI, as a part of a one-time settlement under its Securities Asset Stabilisation Fund (SASF). The assessee's principal grievance before us, to no rebuttal by the ld. Departmental Representative (DR), was that the said amount stands assessed de hors and without regard to the details of the various loans comprised in the one-time settlement,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
B.R. Mittal, J.M. 1. The assessee has filed this appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 30/03/2012. 2. In ground no.1of the appeal, the assessee has disputed the confirmation of the addition u/s 68 on account of claim of loan from the following persons. a). Damyanti S Jain Rs.1,00,000/- b). Shri Nalinbhai A Shah Rs.2,50,000/- c). Kirtibhai C Shah Rs.2,50,000/- d). Renudevi Makharia Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.10,00,000/- 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Raj Sales and deals in purchasing yarn and sends the same for job work for process of grey fabrics. The same is thereafter sent for checking and then sold in local market and other parts of the country. It is stated that the sales and purchases are through brokers. For the assessment year under consideration the assessee filed return of income of Rs.3,67,140/- on 01/11/2004. The Assessing Officer made assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act on 29/12/2006 assessing total income of Rs.15,91,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] dated 05.12.11. The Revenue is aggrieved from the action of the ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as AO) under section 143(3) read with section 147 by holding that the same suffers from lack of jurisdiction on the part of AO. 2. The grounds of appeal for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 by holding that the same suffers from lack of jurisdiction without appreciating the fact that the notice u/s 148 was issued and duly served on the assessee within the limitation date on 30.03.2010." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in setting aside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the impugned order 6th January 2012, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-X, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2003-04, in the matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for ` 4,41,000, by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers. It has developed a residential project at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, which was completed in the assessment year 1996-97. The return of income for the assessment year 2003 -04 was filed on 27th November 2003, declaring total income of ` 3,07,780. Thereafter the assessment was completed under section 143(3) accepting the return of income. Later on, such an assessment was set aside by the learned Commissioner under the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 and in pursuance thereof, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order date d20th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These appeals and cross objections filed by the Revenue and the Assessee are directed against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) -20, Mumbai dated 02.12.2010 for the Assessment Years 2000-01, 2001-02 and the order dated 03.12.2010 for the assessment year 2002-03, deleting the penalties levied by the AO under section ITA Nos. 1410, 1411 and 1413/Mum/2011 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Since identical issues are involved in all these appeals and cross objections, the same are heard together and disposed off this common order. 2. The relevant facts are that during the assessment years under consideration, various additions on account of ad hoc disallowance of credit card expenses, ad hoc disallowance of telephone expenses, disallowance of donation and estimated profit of receipts of turnover have been made by the AO. Consequently in the penalty proceedings, the AO levied penalties on the respective additions made by him by invoking section 271(1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order 9th November 2011, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-XIX, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2007-08, in the matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) M/s. Falcon Crest Condominium for 2,00,204, by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a housing society and is formed as condominium of residents rather than a co-operative society. The status of the assessee is more of an Association of Persons (for short "AOP"), whose members contribute their monthly maintenance and other charges towards common cause like property tax, security charges, water tax, etc. Since the entire activity is among the members with no profit motive, the assessee's claim has been that it is based on concept of "mutuality" not liable to be tax vis-a-vis expenditure incurred. In the return of income, the assessee had shown ...
Tag this Judgment!