Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Cit Alcatel on 20 September, 1993

Motorola Inc., Erisson Radio Systems ... vs Deputy C.I.T. on 22 June, 2005

100.4. With regard to Dy. CIT v. Alcatel (supra), which is an order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, it was submitted that the decision is based on the fact that all the agreements in that case were separate and distinct, whereas in the present case they are to be read with each other as one integrated whole and if so read the ratio of the order will not be applicable. He further pointed out that the decision of the Delhi Bench was based on two concessions made on behalf of the assessee and further as para 41 of the said order shows, the question largely depended on the nature of the operations that were carried out in India. In the present case, however, according to Mr. Sharma since all the operations are carried out in India, the ratio of the order of the Delhi Bench is not applicable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 237 - Cited by 82 - Full Document

Sumitomo Corporation vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 May, 2007

In this regard he highlighted the fact that each contract was for a portion of the total project of MUL and had been awarded to the assessee separately and independently pursuant to global tenders. He submitted that commonality of the principal cannot be the basis to conclude that the period of supervision under different contracts had to be aggregated. He took strong exception to the belief entertained by the Revenue authorities that the contracts for supervision had been deliberately split up and divided into smaller contracts just to circumvent the period of 6 months mentioned in Article 5(4) of DTAA. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. Alcatel (supra) wherein it has been held that allegation of tax planning device where contract is by the Government of India cannot be accepted. In this regard, he pointed out that the whole project of MUL had not been awarded to the assessee and there were several persons other than the assessee who were awarded different contracts on the basis of tenders floated independently. He also highlighted the fact that even the equipments supplied under each contract, were different and did not complement each other. The fact that the equipments supplied by the assessee were installed by local contractors and that the assessee merely supervised such installation, according to him, would go to show that each of the contracts for supply and contracts for supervision was independent and the period of supervision under each contract should not (sic) be segregated to see if the test laid down in Article 5(4) was satisfied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 61 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Assessee on 8 February, 2012

In the said factual background the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts (cited supra) has been pressed into action claiming relief on the ground that making incorrect claim per se does not constitute furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is not in dispute that all relevant facts qua the amount namely the narration in the accounts are fully disclosed. Thus in the facts where all necessary facts are disclosed merely because an incorrect claim has been made considering the principle cited in the case of Reliance Petroproducts, we do not find how the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the action of the AO can be upheld. It is seen that the explanation offered by the assessee is a bona fide explanation which in the absence of anything to the contrary ought to have been accepted. The view taken is further fortified by the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Price Water House Cooper (P.) Ltd. (cited supra) wherein penalty order has been struck down accepting the error to be as inadvertent bonafide error where such an error was held as a human error "which we are all prone to make". This finding has been given in the facts of an accounting firm of International repute and the Hon'ble Apex Court held therein that the caliber and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with inadvertent error.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, Rewari vs Sh. Manish Yadav, Rewari on 9 August, 2019

The ld. DR further argued that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Honb'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs CIT vs Bir Singh (HUF) in ITA No.209 of 2004, wherein in was held that the element of interest on enhanced amount of compensation u/s 28 of 1894 of the Act falls for taxation u/s 56 as 3 ITA No.3836/Del/2016 income from other sources in the year of receipt under cash system of accountancy.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi on 11 May, 2020

"11. Our attention was then drawn by counsel of the assessee to CIT vs CIT v. Manmohan Das [1966] 59 ITR 699(SC) ...... If this decision be properly analysed, it would seem that the application of the principle of finality, which has been submitted for our acceptance by counsel for the Revenue and which found favour with the Tribunal has been rejected by the Supreme Court in a substantially similar set up when it opined that the decision of the ITO in the preceding year that the loss cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee despite the fact that he has rested content with that decision and not carried further the matter by way of appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Motor And General Finance Ltd. vs Dcit, Spl. Range-16 on 29 January, 2004

In the case of CIT v. CIT v. Tingri Tea Co. 79 ITR 294 the claim of the assessee was rejected on the ground that over draft from the bank were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. The AAC also found that the company had made remittances to U.K. by taking overdrafts from the banks in India and the borrowings from the banks in India were partly invest ed in earning interest income in U.K. The Tribunal was of the opinion that correct way to interpret the transaction would be tha the remittances to the U.K. came out of profits in India and the Bank overdrafts in India had, in fact, been utilized in carrying on the overseas business and thus Income-tax Authorities were not justified in disallowing any part of bank interest paid by the assessee in India on its bank overdrafts. It was held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that the inference of the Tribunal that remittances to the U.K. came out of profits earned in India and the Bank overdrafts in India had in fact been utilized in carrying on assessee's business was sustainable in law and on such inference of findings of fact, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income-tax authorities were not justified in disallowing any part of bank's interest on the overdrafts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 77 - Full Document

Hotel Arti Delux P. Ltd. vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 July, 2005

9. Thereafter the learned Judicial Member extensively referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. 249 ITR 47. He has further recorded that appeal against above decision has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 263 ITR 149. Applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court the learned Judicial Member held that lease in question involved letting out of the building. This intention of the assessee was clear from the document. The tests laid down by their Lordships in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd., 51 ITR 353 were fully satisfied in this case. The learned Judicial Member accordingly held "it was a case of letting out the building and income is to be assessed from house property." He further observed as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri Satish Kumar Keshri, Prop Hira Panna ... vs Income-Tax Officer (Technical) on 28 April, 2006

(i) 85 ITR 586 (Allahabad)-Iahwar Das Kungmal v. CIT (1972) 1st time plea before ITAT Objection not raised before CIT Iahwar Das Kungmal v. CIT At the same, time a plea must be taken by assessee before CIT at the time of hearing after the assessee is served with a notice, that reasonable opportunity and time has not been allowed. Unless the assessee does that, he cannot successfully take that plea for the first time before Tribunal, where on facts, it was held that the petition had sufficient time for preparing his case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna Cites 39 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

R.S. Components & Controls (India) ... vs Assessee

Learned AR also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. of CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-33-HC-DEL-IT (ITA Nos.1391/ 2010, 1394/2010 & 1396/2010) for the proposition that when full details have been given in the notes to the accounts, balance sheet and tax audit report with regard to claim of depreciation on goodwill, then the proceedings u/s 263 cannot be sustained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next