|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 155 Records
-
1986 (6) TMI 75 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Hindu Undivided Family, Assessability Of, Capital Gains, Chargeability Of ... ... ... ... ..... the acquisition of which element of cost is either actually present or is capable of being reckoned and not in respect of those assets in acquisition of which the element of the cost is altogether inconceivable, as in the present case.... It is trite law by now that capital gains could be subjected to tax only in respect of an asset cost of acquisition of which has been something in terms of money or is capable of being reckoned. In the instant case, the assessee s father got it not even for a song but absolutely for nothing. Therefore, there was no cost of acquisition. In the light of above discussion and for the reasons given by the AAC in his order, which we adopt, his action is hereby confirmed. 8. Before we part, we may mention that since the order of the AAC is more than detailed in respect of both the issues, we have intentionally avoided encumbering this order because that would have meant repetition and nothing else. 9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 74 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Carry Forward And Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... ideration for the taking over. Apparently, because of such peculiar situation the ITO on the reasons recorded by him, has declined to allow set off of the earlier years profits against the current year s income as he was of the view that the change in the shareholding was to avoid or reduce the tax liability as mentioned earlier. The ITO was not satisfied that a change in the shareholding from Guha Roy Group to Mehra Group was not effected with a view to avoiding or reducing liability to tax. Considering the surrounding circumstances and the facts of the case as available, we are of the opinion that the conditions spelt out by clause b of section 79 have also been independently satisfied. Thus, from what we have stated earlier, the order of the Commissioner Appeals in the circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. 19. In the circumstances, we reverse the order of the Commissioner Appeals and restore that of the ITO. 20. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is allowed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 73 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Investment Allowance, Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... n buying and selling of flats. This amount was never taxed in the past. Hence, this did not constitute a trade debt and the question of allowing it as a bad debt does not arise. We have also considered as to whether the amount could be allowed as a trading loss. But we do not find any reason to arrive at that conclusion. Admittedly, the interest amount was assessed under the head Income from other sources which clearly indicates that the amount was a loan and so it was an investment on the capital account. Thus, the loss, if any, has occurred on the capital account. Again, the assessee has not taken any steps to recover the debt. Above all, it has not been shown as to how the loss arose during the previous year under consideration. Under the circumstances, we are unable to interfere with the finding of the revenue authorities. 11. In the result, the departmental appeal is partly allowed while the assessee s appeal may be treated as partly allowed for the statistical purposes.
-
1986 (6) TMI 72 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Allowability of Depreciation, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... he ground that the appeal does not lie on these issues. 11. The assessee s counsel relying on CIT v. Lalit Prasad Rohini Kumar 1979 117 ITR 603 (Cal.) urged that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error and he should have given the finding on merit. The departmental representative relying on the Allahabad High Court decision in Vidyapat Singhania v. CIT 1977 107 ITR 533 urged that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be maintained. 12. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified is not entertaining the ground of the assessee. The assessee is denying its complete liability for interest under section 139(8) and 215. Moreover, this ground has been taken by the assessee along with other grounds. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee on these grounds is admitted and the matter is referred back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to give finding on merit after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1986 (6) TMI 71 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Allowability of Depreciation, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... he ground that the appeal does not lie on these issues. 11. The assessee s counsel relying on CIT v. Lalit Prasad Rohini Kumar 1979 117 ITR 603 (Cal.) urged that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error and he should have given the finding on merit. The departmental representative relying on the Allahabad High Court decision in Vidyapat Singhania v. CIT 1977 107 ITR 533 urged that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be maintained. 12. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified is not entertaining the ground of the assessee. The assessee is denying its complete liability for interest under section 139(8) and 215. Moreover, this ground has been taken by the assessee along with other grounds. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee on these grounds is admitted and the matter is referred back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to give finding on merit after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1986 (6) TMI 70 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Annual Charge, Carrying On Business, Deduction Of Interest, House Rent, Income From House Property, Interest Payable, Rectification Of Mistakes
-
1986 (6) TMI 69 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ce of the direction given in the order dated 3-9-1982. Hence we come to the conclusion that the order of the Tribunal dated 3-9-1982 and contain a direction. The orders of reassessment for the years now under consideration before us have been passed in consequence of or to give effect to the said direction of the Tribunal. Hence, the time limits for making the assessment as laid down in section 149 or the necessity to take sanction as provided for in section 150(1) did not apply to the facts of this case. In view of our factual finding as above, the cases laws relied upon by the learned representative for the assessee do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of reassessment and hold that they are not barred by limitation, as contended by the assessee. We uphold the orders of the revenue authorities for both the years under consideration. 7. In the result, the two appeals are dismissed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 68 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Advertisement Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the rate of 12 1/2 per cent and where such expenditure exceeds 1/2 per cent of the turnover or gross receipts the disallowance will be made at the rate of 15 per cent. These provision will not apply in cases where the aggregate expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion dose not exceed Rs. 20,000 in a year. Newly established industrial concerns will also be exempted from this provision for an initial period of three years .... Since there is no material on record to hold that the assessee had set up a separate and independent industrial undertaking for the manufacture or production of an article, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption provided in terms of section 37(3D). We would, accordingly, by reversing the Commissioner (Appeals) s order restore the IAC s addition of Rs. 33,481 and Rs. 43,219 out of advertisement and publicity expenses for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. 4. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 67 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... /w superannuation has a clear meaning that a person retires after completing a period of service which entitles him to certain retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc.. The section, however, envisages retirement other than the superannuation. However, it is not the same that a resignation from the contract service would fit in the words retirement otherwise than on superannuation, because resignation and retirement are not the same thing. It is possible to envisage a service under the contract where superannuation may be at the age of 50 years or so and one may be entitled to retire, say, after putting in 5/10 years of service. That type of case would fit in the words used in sub-cl. (1) of s. 10 (10AA) that may be retirement otherwise than on superannuation. We are of the opinion that resignation from a contract service is not envisaged in s. 10 (10AA) (i) or (ii). We therefore, allow the departmental appeal, set aside the order of the AAC and restore that of the ITO.
-
1986 (6) TMI 66 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Business Disallowance, Remuneration, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... e said club fees were not perquisite. We uphold the Commissioner (Appeals) s order on this point by following Tribunal s decision for the assessment year 1975-76 in the assessee s case. 38. Gratuity of Rs. 1.31 lakhs Contribution for gratuity of Rs. 1.31 lakhs was made in the assessment year 1974-75 and thought the said payment was disallowed in the assessment, it was allowed in appeal. The IAC, accordingly, rejected the assessee s claim of deduction of this amount again in the assessment year under consideration (assessment year 1977-78). The Commissioner (Appeals) s vide para 10, noted the assessee s contention that in the assessment year 1974-75, the Tribunal had reversed the Commissioner (Appeals) s order and had upheld the disallowance. In these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the IAC to verify the correct position and decide the matter afresh. We see no reason to interfere with the said direction. 39. In the result, revenue s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 65 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... n of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible. The decisions of the Bombay High Court in the cases of N.U.C. (P.) Ltd. s case and Shah Construction Co. Ltd. s case relied upon by the Commissioner are, in our view, rendered under different sections of the Act and in a different context for purposes other than the grant of investment allowance. Similarly, the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hydle Construction (P.) Ltd. has no direct application to the facts of the case. They are, therefore, not germane to the issue before us. It is, therefore, to be held that the assessee in this case is fully entitled to benefits of investment allowance under section 32A and the Commissioner was not justified in revising the orders of the ITO for both the assessment years. The order of the Commissioner is, accordingly, reversed and those of the ITO are restored. 9. The appeals are allowed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 64 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... ench carefully examined the various activities undertaken by the assessee and eventually held as follows The fact that the product, which originally was a rough casting comes out as a new product called step processed bearing shells which alone was required to be fitted to the goods wagons, itself justified the assessee s claims that it was the manufacturing process that was more necessary than the ownership of articles which it manufactured . On similar activities, as undertaken by the assessee, we are inclined to uphold the contentions in the light of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the above case. Such a view has an authority of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Perfect Liners. We therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of investments allowance under s. 32A of the Act. Accordingly, we sets aside the order of the Commissioner under s. 263 and restore that of the ITO. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 63 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Income From Other Sources, Profit Chargeable To Tax ... ... ... ... ..... sessee before the ITO to the effect that there was no provision corresponding to section 41(1) which would be applicable to income from other sources, was erroneous. In view of the fact that under section 59(1) provisions of section 41(1) of the Act were applicable in computing the income of the assessee under section 56, as they applied in computing the income of an assessee under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . We are of the opinion that Shri Patil was right in conceding this point. Under section 59(1), the amount of additional tax paid would be liable to be included in the total income because of the fact that in the earlier assessment years deduction had been allowed in respect of the said amount and the said amount was received in the accounting year relevant to the present assessment year. We, accordingly, uphold the order of the ITO including the said amount in the total income of the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 62 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... 0. He, therefore, allowed certain reliefs to the assessee under s. 273A of the IT Act. From the above document, it is abundantly clear that the CIT had issued directions to levy penalty at 50 per cent of tax sought to be evaded under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act only for asst. yr. 1978-79 and not for three years under appeal. At any rate, when no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income have been detected, question of imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act could not arise. Sub-s. (5) of s. 273(a) of IT Act has no application in this case. We also agree with Shri Patil that there can be no estoppel against a statute and the assessee had statutory right to challenge the orders levying penalties on the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. For the above reasons, we find no merit in these appeals of the Revenue and hold that the AAC was right in cancelling the penalties imposed by the ITO. 6. In the result these appeals are dismissed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 61 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Business Expenditure, In Case Of Companies ... ... ... ... ..... from them as per sub-section (5A) of section 309 but above sub-section (5A) has no application in case of a professional director. We do not agree with the above submission as in the above sub-section (5A) words used are any director and not whole-time director or professional director . In our opinion, above sub-section is equally applicable to a professional director. Thus payment made in excess of the approved amount of Rs. 20,000 must be held to be a payment made in violation of law and, therefore, cannot be treated as an expenditure incidental to business. Thus the payment connected with illegal transaction cannot be held to be a payment connected with normal incident of business. In the above circumstances, payment in excess of Rs. 20,000 cannot be allowed as a permissible deduction. Authorities below, therefore, in our opinion, were right in making above disallowance. Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, upheld. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 60 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Representative Assessee, Direct Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... become barred by time. Thus, as far as the assessment year 1980-81 is concerned, the trust has not been assessed in respect of income from house property. Section 166 of the Act empowers the ITO to assess the beneficiary in respect of the income of trust property where the trustees have not been assessed in respect thereof. If the property had been given on rent, the assessee would have been liable to be assessed in respect of rent income. When the property is not given on rent he would be liable to be assessed in respect of income assessable under the head Income from house property . 8. We, therefore, confirm the inclusion of Rs. 3,675 in the total income of the assessee. We do not consider it necessary in this appeal to record any decision on the plea of the department that trust deed was a mere veil and that various terms of the trust deed indicated that ownership continued to vest in the assessee in spite of execution of trust deed. 9. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 59 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Business Income, Chargeable As, Head Office Expenditure, Business Expenditure, Allowability of
-
1986 (6) TMI 58 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... obha Singh and Sons and Harideep Singh Bubber on the identical facts, the ITO has accepted their claims, then I do not see any reason for non-accepting the claim of the assessee. The other reasons, which are there in the order of the ITO are irrelevant and his findings and conclusions, are based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, I hold that the ITO has committed an error in law and facts in disallowing the claim of the assessee and as such his order cannot be restored. 13. In view of my above discussion and reasons thereto, I hold that the AAC is justified in allowing the claims of the assessee and as such, I confirm the impugned order. 14. As the cross-objection of the assessee is to support the order of the AAC, which has been confirmed by me and, therefore, I hold that the cross-objection of the assessee, in this situation of the matter has become infructuous. 15. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, as well as the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 57 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... spect has not been examined. The orders of the authorities below on this issue, therefore, are set aside and the issue regarding the addition of these three cash credits is restored to the file of the assessing authority for being decided afresh after factually examining as to whether these cash credits introduced in this year could be explained by the withdrawals made in these accounts in the earlier years. 25 to 28. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues. 29. In the result, the appeal of the department is allowed in part. 30. As far as the cross-objection of the assessee is concerned, it was stated before us at the time of hearing that the cross-objection was filed only to support the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). No other contention raised against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been pressed. The cross-objection has become infructuous, in view of the order given above in the appeal of the department. It is accordingly dismissed.
-
1986 (6) TMI 56 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... of work done by M/s Faberect. The word somehow is indicative of the fact that although the CIT was not fully convinced yet he exercised jurisdiction vested in him under s. 263 of the Act. This goes to show that the jurisdiction was not assumed by the CIT in accordance with law. The CIT had passed the order half-heartedly. Therefore, we fully agree with the submission of the authorised representative for the assessee that the order of the CIT is incorrect. We further hold that the CIT cannot regularise the notice under s. 263(1) later on. Hence we cancel his order passed under s. 263 of the Act and restore that of the ITO. 16. Before parting with the case, we would like to point out that quantum appeal for the subsequent asst. yr. i.e. 1981-82 is pending of adjudication before the CIT (A) as referred to above. This finding of ours is without prejudice to the rights of the parties to be decided by the CIT (A) in the asst. yr. 1981-82. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
|
