Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat mumbai Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.046 seconds)

Jun 25 1999 (TRI)

Petroleum India International Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-25-1999

Reported in : (2000)241ITR43(Mum.)

1. the appeal of the assessee, for asst. yr. 1992-93, had come up for hearing before 'a' bench, mumbai and on the recommendation of the bench, the president constituted a special bench for deciding the appeal. the issue involved is : "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the first appellate authority was justified in upholding the order of the ao disallowing deduction under s. 80-o of the it act, 1961, with reference to gross convertible foreign exchange received by the assessee by way of fees for technical and consultancy services rendered by it to the parties abroad ?" 2. the relevant facts, in this case, are that the appellant is an aop and consists of nine public sector companies as its members. the appellant provides technical and consultancy services to various parties abroad. for asst. yr. 1992-93, for which the previous year ended on 31st march, 1992, the assessee had claimed deduction under s.80-o of the it act, 1961 of rs. 3,38,38,386 being 50 per cent of the total foreign exchange received during the year of rs. 6,76,76,773. the assessee had incurred an expenditure of rs. 1,10,06,689 relatable to two projects, viz., nnpc and petromech. in computing the deduction under s. 80-o, assessee did not take into account the aforementioned expenditure of rs. 1,10,06,689 incurred in india. it was claimed that deduction under s. 80-o is allowable on the receipt of income from abroad in foreign exchange and, therefore, the expenditure incurred in india is .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1999 (TRI)

Jhantala Investments Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-25-1999

Reported in : (2000)73ITD123(Mum.)

1. the assessee is a company. it was granted certificate of registration no. 23334 of 1980, by the registrar of companies, bombay, on 24-10-1980. photocopy of the certificate of incorporation is provided at page 6 of the paper compilation filed on behalf of the assessee. as per the certificate commencement of business was granted to the assessee dated 25th november, 1980, a copy of which is provided at page 7 of the paper compilation, and accordingly the assessee commenced its business. the company is a public limited company. its business is that of investment and trading in shares by way of speculation and ready shares. m/s. h. b. financial consultants pvt.ltd., h-72, connaught circus, new delhi was the managers to issue of equity shares of 170000 at rs. 10 each for cash at par. the registered office of the assessee was at 1111-a, raheja chambers, 213, backbay reclamation scheme, nariman point, bombay - 400 021. the authorised share capital was rs. 30,00,000 divided into 3,00,000 equity shares of rs. 10 face value out of which 30000 equity shares of rs. 10 each was paid-up for cash at par to the promoters, directors and their friends.excluding 30000 equity shares, 1,70,000 shares at the face value of rs. 10 each were offered to the public. when off ered to the public, the conditions were that on application rs. 5 per equity share is to be paid and on allotment the remaining rs. 5 per equity share is to be paid. one of the board of directors, inter alia, comprised of shri .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1999 (TRI)

R.B. Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-19-1999

Reported in : (2000)75ITD250(Mum.)

1. in view of the common grounds involved in these 5 appeals filed by the same assessee, they are consolidated in the common order for the sake of convenience. these appeals have been filed by the assessee shri r. b. singh of m/s. machinery sales and services, bombay against the common order passed by the cit(a) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1980-81.2. the assessee is carrying on business in the purchase and sale of textile machinery parts under the name m/s. machinery sales and services. the assessee filed returns of income for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1980-81 declaring the total income as shown below : 3. the assessments were completed under section 144 of the income-tax act on total income as under : 4. the assessment orders were made on 27-3-1986 for all the 5 years under consideration. the assessee later filed returns of income on 17-3-1987 showing the total income as under : 5. the assessee's claim was that the revised returns filed by him after the completion of the assessments were returns under the amnesty scheme and so he was entitled to the benefits available under the scheme. it was contended before the assessing officer that as the assessee was entitled to the benefits under the amnesty scheme, he was not liable for penalty under the various sections of the income-tax act. the assessing officer did not accept the above contention. he had already .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1999 (TRI)

Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-03-1999

1. these are cross appeals by the assessee and the department against the order of the cit(a) dated 30-3-1995 for the assessment year 1991-92. these were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. various grounds are taken by the assessee in ita no. 5531/bom./95.excluding the ancillary grounds, the main grounds are as follows :- "01. (a) the cit(a) was not justified in sustaining the addition of rs. 62,500 made by the ac by estimating the professional receipts of the appellant at rs. 5,00,000 as against the admitted receipts of rs. 4,37,500. 02. (a) the first appellate authority was not correct in confirming the estimated disallowance of rs. 20,000 made by the ac out of expenses incurred by the appellant on salary and bonus of his employees. 03. (a) the cit (appeals) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of rs. 1,19,952 out of interest claimed by the appellant on the ground that the relevant borrowals were made from concerns whose name appear in annexure a3 seized from the office premises of eshita dye chem pvt. ltd. in december 1991, in the course of search under section 132 of the income-tax act. 04. (j) the first appellate authority was not justified in upholding in principle the assessing officer's decision to bring to tax in the hands of appellant, the "peak" of the credits appearing in the bank accounts of the 110 bank accounts whose names appear in annexure a3. (the addition sustained by the cit(a) in this regard is rs. 2,62,01,981 out of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1999 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-17-1999

Reported in : (2000)74ITD92(Mum.)

1. this appeal is directed against the order of the cit(a) dated 21-10-1991 for the assessment year 1988-89. 1. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned cit(a) erred in holding that the supreme court decision in the case of jamnadas kanahaiyalal 130 itr 244 is not applicable to the cases of return filed under the amnesty scheme, 1985. 2. without prejudice to the above, the cit(a) has failed to appreciate the fact that the declarants could not have held the jewellery alleged to have been sold to the firm during may 1987 to june 1987 when during the search action by the it. department in september 1982 the jewellery under reference was neither found at their premises, nor was it mentioned in their depositions. the cit(a) has thus clearly erred in deleting the addition of rs. 1,53,02,266 made on account of alleged purchase consideration credited to the accounts of the partners and their family members.3. the assessee in this case is a partnership firm with a leadership position in the line of gold jewellery. for the assessment year 1988-89, it filed its return declaring an income of rs. 33,18,400. it is claimed that in the year of account relevant for the assessment year 1988-89 the assessee had made purchases of gold ornaments of rs. 1,53,02,226 weighing 54,803,250 gms (54.803 kgs.) from the partners of the firm and their family members. in the audit report furnished under section 44ab, the said purchases were shown as the purchases of old .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1999 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-17-1999

1. this appeal is directed against the order of the cit(a) dated 21st october, 1991, for the asst. yr. 1988-89. "1. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned cit(a) erred in holding that the supreme court decision in the case of jamna prasad kanhaiyalal vs. cit (1981) 130 itr 244 (sc) is not applicable to the cases of return filed under the amnesty scheme, 1985. (2) without prejudice to the above, the cit(a) has failed to appreciate the fact that the declarants could not have held the jewellery alleged to have been sold to the firm during may, 1987, to june 1987 when during the search action by the it department in september, 1982 the jewellery under reference was neither found at their premises, nor was it mentioned in their depositions. the cit(a) has thus clearly erred in deleting the addition of rs. 1,53,02,266 made on accounts of alleged purchase consideration credited to the accounts of the partners and their family members." 3. the assessee in this case is a partnership firm with a leadership position in the line of gold jewellery. for the asst. yr. 1988-89, it filed its return declaring an income of rs. 33,18,400. it is claimed that in the year of account relevant for the asst. yr. 1988-89 the assessee had made purchases of gold ornaments of rs. 1,53,02,266 weighing 54,803,250 gms (54,803 kgs.) from the partners of the firm and their family members. in the audit report furnished under s. 44ab, the said purchases were shown as the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //