Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
N.K. Billaiya, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, Mumbai dt. 11.2.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has challenged the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by raising two substantial grounds of appeal. Ground No. 1 relates to confirmation of the action of the AO by which the claim of the assessee has been reduced u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act on the ground that payments made directly abroad by way of deduction from export receivables on account of agency commission do not form part of export turnover eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 10A of the Act. 3. In alternative and without prejudice to this ground, the assessee has also raised additional ground by which it claims that export turnover in the numerator as the same meaning as the export turnover which is a constituent element of the total turnover in the denominator. 4. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that if certain item of expe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Per Sanjay Garg (JM): With this common order, we shall dispose off three appeals i.e. two filed by the assessee relevant to A.Ys 2004-05 and 2006-07 respectively and one filed by the revenue relevant to A.Y. 2006-07. For the sake of convenience we shall take up the facts of the case from ITA No.7413/Mum/20 relevant to A.Y. 2004-05. ITA No. 7413/Mum/2012 for A.Y. 2004-05 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dated 08.11.2007 relevant to A.Y. 2004-05. The first ground of appeal read as under: 1. Re : Computation of Long Term Capital Gains Rs.4,01,31,193/- 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the compensation for alternate accommodation paid to the tenants amounting to Rs.4,25,00,000/- as cost of improvement in computing the capital gains on sale of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
B.R. Mittal, JM: 1. The assesee has filed this appeal for assessment year 2003-04 against order dated 10.5.2011 of ld CIT(A). 2 Ground No.1 of appeal is as under: "Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in passing the order u/s.250 of the Act in gross violation of principles of natural justice." 3. At the time of hearing, ld A.R. submitted that above ground is not pressed for. Hence, Ground No.1 of appeal is dismissed as not pressed for. 4. Ground Nos.2 and 3 read as under: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the AO's action in reopening the completed assessment u/s.147 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the legality of reassessment under section 147 of Income tax Act, 1961 although the AO has not disposed off the assessee's objections to the reopening under section 147 by a speaking order." 5. The relevant facts are that assessee is carrying on contract b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
N.K. Billaiya, Am: These cross appeals by the revenue and the assessee are directed against the very same order of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai dated 17.03.11 pertaining to AY 2007-08 as both the appeals were heard together, the are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 4632/Mum/2011 2. The only grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,210/- made by the AO on account of expenses claimed by the assessee for payment of compensation, not appreciating the fact that the said expenses were prior period expenses. 3. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed expenses on compensation at Rs. 67,81,955 in its Profit and Loss Account. 4. A perusal of the details filed by the assessee showed that the assessee has paid Rs. 50,31,955/- to M/s Punraj Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 17,50,000/- to M/s Chandiwala Enterprises . On further scrutiny, the AO noticed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
D. Manmohan, V.P. 1. These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the CIT(A), Visakhapatanam and they pertain to A.Y. 2001-02. 2. In the appeal filed by the assessee a preliminary issue concerning the validity of reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax, 1961 was raised. 3. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are stated in brief. In the year under consideration the assessee company was engaged in the business of development of computer software. The Visakhapatnam Unit is situated in the Special Economic Zone, i.e. Software Technology Park of Visakhapatnam. The company provides consultancy in software development. The assessee company filed its return of income admitting a loss of `3,20,10,425/- on 30.10.2001 wherein the net profit from the STPI Unit was shown, on which deduction under section 10A was claimed. It also claimed adjustment of the loss from non-STPI Units situated at Visakhapatnam and Mumbai. According to the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
R.S. Syal (AM): 1. This appeal by the Revenue and Cross objection by the assessee arise out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 31.08.2006 in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003. 2. First ground of the Revenue's appeal is against allowing deduction of Staff costs of Rs.16,66,659 and Specific expenses of Rs.21,977 incurred by the head office on behalf of the assessee in entirety holding that such expenses were not covered by the expenses mentioned u/s 44C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an Indian branch of the Development Bank of Singapore. It claimed deduction of Rs.16.66 lakh towards Salary cost of expatriate staff deployed at the branch on a full time basis incurred by the head office on behalf of branch and Rs.21,977 towards Specific expenses incurred by head office on behalf of Indian operations / branch. In the computation of income, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction for these two sums. Inadvertently, the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
D. Karunakara Rao, Am: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee on 22.3.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-8, Mumbai dated 10.1.2012 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised the only effective ground which read as under: "1. The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 272(1)(c) of Rs. 17,39,973/- by the ITO-4(2)(1), Mumbai on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The said CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the claim for R and D expenditure was bona fide one and with supporting evidences. The Ld CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that merely rejection of a claim for expenditure does not result into any concealment of income as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC)." 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of investment and trading of shares and filed the return declaring the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 27th August 2011, passed by the learned Learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXX, Mumbai, for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), for the A.Y. 2009-10. M/s. Sunil Mantri Realty Ltd. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of construction of residential and commercial units at various places in the country. On 9th July 2008, a search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was carried out in Mantri Group of cases including that of the assessee. During the course of search and seizure action, cash worth Rs. 46,09,800, was found from the premises of the assessee, out of which an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs was seized. The Assessing Officer, after considering the statement on oath recorded under section 132(4) of Mr. Sunil Mantri, came to the conclusion that the cash sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
R.S. Syal (AM) : These two sets of cross appeals relate to assessment years 2000- 2001 and 2001-2002. Since some of the issues raised in these appeals are common, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Assessment Year 2000-2001 2. First ground of the assessee's appeal is against the confirmation of addition on account of sales made to Johnson and Johnson Exports Limited of Rs.68,41,258. 3. At the very outset the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that similar issue was raised in assessee's own case for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Placing on record a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.2679/Mum/2003 and 2680/Mum/2003 dated 18th January, 2013, the learned AR contended that the Tribunal was pleased to restore this issue to the file of A.O. with certain directions. The learned Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the facts and circumstances of this ground are similar to those of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
D. Karunakara Rao, AM. 1. There are three appeals under consideration. Out of three appeals, two appeals are filed by the assessee and one appeal is filed by the Revenue. I.T.A. NO.751/M/2008 and ITA No. 2436/M/2008 for the AY: 2004-2005 are the cross appeals and they are filed against the order of CIT (A)-III, Mumbai dated 5.12.2007. The other appeal I.T.A. NO.2591/M/2008 again relates to the AY:2004-2005k but it has genesis in the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, relevant facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of dyes, menthol based products etc. Assessee filed its return of income declaring the income of Rs. 17.8 Cr (rounded off to nearest lakhs) after claiming deduction u/s 80-HHC of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.91 Cr, deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,21,211/- and finally the deduction u/s 80-G the Act amounting to Rs. 93.8 lakhs. In the scrutiny assessment, the assessed income was determined at ...
Tag this Judgment!