210 (Del.), CIT v. M/s Excel Fashion Pvt. Ltd. (201

Ashok Mittal vs. ITO, Ward-24(3)

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…litigation would be eliminated by permitting a debt to be treated as a bad or irrecoverable no sooner it was written off in the books of the assessee concerned.” 11. The same has been the stand of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Autometres Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 345 (Delhi); CIT v. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. [2008] 202 Taxation 329 (Del) and CIT v. Global Capital Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 332 (Delhi) and more recently in CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh [2009] 309 ITR 233 (Delhi). In the last mentioned case at page 239, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case has held as under:- "As regards the second is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., 205, Kushal Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacc0292M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K. Chadha, Ca Date Of Hearing 28.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07/06/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv (In Short “Cit-A”) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.5614565/- On Account Of Contract Receipts, Ignoring The Fact That During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Company Failed To Justify Its Abnormally Low G. P. Rate Of 18.16% In Current Year From 28.9% Last Year. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.14591310/- On Account Of Payment Of Lurgi Life Science(Lls) Germany For Drawing Design Charges, Ignoring The Fact That Benefit Of Enduring Nature Was Drawn By The Assessee.

…raised by the assessee in this respect. The relevant part of the order of the Ld. CIT-A is reproduced as under: “26. The issue has drawn the attention of the Delhi High Court repeatedly but the results have been the same, as in CIT Vs. Autometers Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 345 (Del.), CIT Vs. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. (2008) 202 Taxation 329 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 3009 ITR 233 (Del.) etc. 27. More recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the issue. The Supreme Court has decided the issue in T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC). It has been held as under: “This position in la…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Apollo International Group Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: : Shri L.P. Sahu & Smt. Beena Pillai

…ce with the provisions of that section if the debt was written off in the books of accounts. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- • TRF Ltd. v. CIT: 323 ITR 397 (SC) • CIT vs Auto Pins India Ltd.: 208 Taxman 5 (Delhi) • CIT v. Autometers Limited: 292 ITR 345 (Del) • CIT vs. Coates of India Limited: 232 ITR 324 (Cal) • CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Ltd: 292 ITR 399 (Mad) • Nandlal Vithaldas v. CIT: 180 ITR 609 (Bom) • CIT v. Star Chemicals (Bombay) P. Ltd.: 220 CTR 319 • DIT v. Oman International Bank SAOG: 313 ITR 128 (Bom) Reliance is placed on the recent Circular No. 12/2016 issued by CBDT clari…

Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

…r part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt is written off or of an earlier previous year. She placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Autometer Ltd. – 292 ITR 345 (Del.); ii) CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. 292 ITR 339 (Del.); iii) T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT – 323 ITR 397 (SC); 13.2 The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 14. Considering the above submissions, we find that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had reversed professio…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vistar Construction Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed in limine

…luded from looking into the fact whether the debt is “bad” or not. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 339 and CIT Vs. Autometers Limited 292 ITR 345. CBDT Circular No.551 dated 23.01.1990 also supports the assessee’s claim………… xxx xxx xxx ……. Later Philip Holzman has filed a winding up petition against Holzman Videocon Engineers Ltd. u/s 433(f) read with 439 of the Company Act, 1956 inter alia alleging that there is a dead lock in the management of the company.…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vistar Construction Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed in limine

…luded from looking into the fact whether the debt is “bad” or not. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 339 and CIT Vs. Autometers Limited 292 ITR 345. CBDT Circular No.551 dated 23.01.1990 also supports the assessee’s claim………… xxx xxx xxx ……. Later Philip Holzman has filed a winding up petition against Holzman Videocon Engineers Ltd. u/s 433(f) read with 439 of the Company Act, 1956 inter alia alleging that there is a dead lock in the management of the company.…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vistar Construction Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed in limine

…luded from looking into the fact whether the debt is “bad” or not. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 339 and CIT Vs. Autometers Limited 292 ITR 345. CBDT Circular No.551 dated 23.01.1990 also supports the assessee’s claim………… xxx xxx xxx ……. Later Philip Holzman has filed a winding up petition against Holzman Videocon Engineers Ltd. u/s 433(f) read with 439 of the Company Act, 1956 inter alia alleging that there is a dead lock in the management of the company.…