|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1549 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 891
... ...
... ... ..... he Limited Company has claimed depreciation on the written down value only in relation to assets received by it from the partnership firm. In view of the facts and evidence which have been appreciated by the Tribunal, no question of law, much less substantial question of law, can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 885
... ...
... ... ..... ; 21,766 in 1981-82 and of ₹ 16,464 in 1982-83, is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. The two questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee are "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a valid charge or mortgage was created by the deed of hypothecation trust dated 1st May, 1981, as modified by the supplementary deed dated 27-9-1982? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, part of the interest on fixed deposits from the public was liable to be disallowed under section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the two assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84?" 6. Questions similar to these questions have been considered by this Court in the case of L.G. Balakrishna & Bros. Ltd. v. CIT 2000 245 ITR 743 1 and those questions were answered against the revenue. For the reasons stated in that judgment, these questions are also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 883
... ...
... ... ..... The ld. Accountant Member in his order has approved the action of the first appellate authority in restoring the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer asking him to re-process the same de novo but after bringing the other legal heirs on record. This direction is in conformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Singh's case (supra) and I, therefore, have no hesitation whatsoever in confirming on the aforesaid facts and legal position the view expressed by the ld. Accountant Member. Before I part with this reference I would like to mention that six assessment years were involved but in respect of three the assessee decided to avail of KVSS, 1998 and a separate order has already been passed. The present order, therefore, pertains to those assessment years for which the assessee did not choose to go in KVSS, 1998. 19. The matter may now be listed before the Division Bench for passing an order in accordance with the majority opinion.
-
2001 (12) TMI 879
... ...
... ... ..... law, the Tribunal would be within its power to decline the application. In that case it was found that the effect of the rectification which the Assessing Officer had effected based on the audit objection and which had been upheld by the Tribunal was to make the assessment conform to the requirement of the substantive law 6. In this case also, as a result of the rectification effected, the assessee has been granted depreciation in accordance with what the law stipulates. The rectification was made by the Assessing Officer as he had apparently not noticed the proper provision under which the assessee could be allowed depreciation for its rigs and compressors. The extent of the depreciation actually allowed after the rectification was in conformity with the law which law has been subsequently declared by the decision of this Court in Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corpn.’s case (supra). 7. We, therefore, answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (12) TMI 875
... ...
... ... ..... Hence, this decision also does not come to the rescue of the assessee. The decision in the case of Bagree Estates (P.) Ltd. (supra), though apparently is in favour of the assessee, yet we find that in this case also the issue was not decided on merits but the appeal was allowed to maintain consistency as the claim was allowed in the past. 4.3 Under these circumstances, we prefer to follow the decision of the Delhi High Court and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Suri (supra) and J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (supra) we hold that the Society’s maintenance charges payable by the assessee in respect of leased property is not allowable as deduction either under section 23 or under section 24 of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the revenue succeeds. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 874
... ...
... ... ..... of law, much less any question of law, arises out of the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal has appreciated the facts and the evidence on the record and has come to conclusion. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. R & P to be returned to the Tribunal immediately.
-
2001 (12) TMI 873
... ...
... ... ..... mble opinion, is the proper approach to the controversy. 11. In the result, I agree with the learned AM that the salary received by the assessee in India is taxable under Section 5(2)(a) on receipt basis and also as having accrued or arisen to him in India under Section 5(2)(b). Section 9(1)(ii) read with Explanation thereto is not relevant for the controversy. I, therefore, answer the question referred to me in the affirmative and agree with the view expressed by the learned AM that the appeal should be dismissed. 12. The matter will now go before the Bench for passing appropriate orders. M.K. Chaturvedi, Vice President 19th Dec., 2001 1. In conformity with the opinion of the majority of the Members of the Tribunal who have heard this case, including those who first heard it, for the reasons stated in the order we adjudicate the issue apropos the point of difference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 2. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 872
... ...
... ... ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that without prejudice to the answer to the above question, whether the Tribunal was right in further holding that the term ‘gross receipts’ occurring in the same clause did not mean the gross realisation of the firm during the year, but only the realisation attributable to the completed pictures ignoring the part receipts for ongoing pictures? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that proviso to sub-section (2) of section 145 of the IT Act, 1961, does not apply to the facts of the case ?" 2. Questions similar to these were considered by this Court in respect of the same assessee for another assessment year in Tax Case No. 190 of 1997, decided on 22nd Nov., 2001 and the question was answered in favour of assessee. These questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 835
Business expenditure, Entertainment expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... of sandalwood or ivory pieces which were meant only as a measure of business promotion and not for any advertisement of their products but the learned Assessing Officer without examining the said aspect in its proper perspective, mechanically applied holding that since the presentation items were of value of more than Rs. 50 therefore, the same are not admissible as business expenditure. In the instant case also, the Assessing Officer has disallowed expenses, in question, merely on the ground that presentation articles were of the value of more than Rs. 50 each. In fact, the Assessing Officer has not brought any other material on record. Even the learned CIT(A) has not given any cogent reasons while confirming the addition. In view of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Karnataka High Court also, no addition is called for and accordingly the same is hereby deleted. 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 534
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... d income, and a direction by way of rectification to the effect that the income so determinable as assessed income be restricted to the returned income, the original appellate order may appropriately be treated as having an apparent mistake contained therein. Such a mistake needs be treated as rectifiable also for the reason that such a rectification yields an equilibrium of justice, without entailing grievance to any of the parties. In that view of the matter we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the Assessing Officer rsquo s petition under section 154. We therefore, reverse the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) and allow the Assessing Officer rsquo s petition filed under section 154 and direct that the assessed income determinable as a result of Ld. CIT(A) rsquo s appellate order dated 24-4-1995, if goes below returned income, then the same be restricted to the returned income. 16. In the result the revenue rsquo s appeal No. 1680/JP/95 is allowed as indicated above.
-
2001 (12) TMI 533
Business disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... d the rival contentions, and having perused copies of challans at pages 107 to 114 of the paper-book, we are inclined to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall give necessary relief to the assessee, after examining the necessary evidence and after obtaining necessary clarifications, in accordance with the law. 49. Ground No. 5 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 50. As regards ground No. 6, as the matter is being restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and he has to make fresh computation of income, after taking into account losses, if any, of the earlier years, no specific adjudication is required. No issue is raised under ground No. 7 and accordingly, no adjudication is required on this issue also. Ground Nos. 6 and 7 are, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. 51. In the result, appeal for the assessment year 1997-98 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 52. To sum up, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2001 (12) TMI 530
... ...
... ... ..... Department rsquo s contention that in the said decision, the Hon rsquo ble High Court had no occasion to consider the implications of the provisions of Explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As is mentioned above, this decision has been affirmed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Prithipal Singh and Co. rsquo s case (supra). As is pointed out by the ld. counsel, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in its decision in the case of CIT v. Varindra and Co. (supra), which pertained to a period after the insertion of Explanation 4 to section 271(1), the view expressed in the decision of Prithipal Singh and Co., affirmed by the Apex Court, has been followed. I would, therefore, accept the assessee rsquo s contention that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not exigible in law for the two assessment years under consideration. The penalty orders are cancelled. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 529
Mutual concern ... ... ... ... ..... opriate basis if the same cannot be bifurcated on the basis of actuals. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly. 12. In the next ground, the assessee is aggrieved against not granting of expenses incurred for earning income when a specific claim was made in the return. This ground, though specifically raised before the CIT(A), the same is not dealt with by him. Hence, we remand this matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication with a direction to keep in mind our decision with regard to the grant of depreciation. 13. Next ground relating to levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was not pressed at the time of the hearing and hence the same is rejected as such. 14. In the last ground, the assessee is aggrieved for non-withdrawal of the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground also was not pressed at the time of hearing and hence the same is rejected as such. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 527
Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... s to the deposit of Rs. 7,500 made by the assessee in her bank account treated as her undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. 11. In this regard it is observed that the assessee was having her regular source of income upto assessment year 1991-92 and considering that her husband was earning regular income from salary as Executive with Kedia Group, it cannot be considered as abnormal for the assessee to accumulate a saving to the extent of Rs. 7,500. Moreover, as we have already deleted the other additions made by the Assessing Officer while deciding ground Nos. 2 and 3 of this appeal, this remaining addition of Rs. 7,500 being within the basic exemption limit, cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee because in that case the assessee was not required to file her return of income. We, therefore, delete this addition of Rs. 7,500 also. 12. Ground No. 5 is general seeking no specific decision from us. 13. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 223
Revision, Of Orders Prejudicial To Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... lated under section 263 is prejudice to the Income-tax administration as a whole. Section 263 is to be invoked not as a jurisdictional corrective or as a review of a subordinate s order, in exercise of the supervisory power, but it is to be invoked and employed only for setting right distortions and prejudices to the Revenue which is a unique conception which has to be understood in the context of and in the interest of revenue administration. 13. I have carefully perused the text and context of the various precedents referred before me at the time of hearing. I have also gone through the orders of the learned Members. In my opinion, conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction under section 263 did not exist in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the conclusion of learned Accountant Member. 14. I now direct the Registry to place these appeals before the Bench for consequential order, in accordance with the majority view.
-
2001 (12) TMI 220
... ...
... ... ..... x liability so long as the order under s. 132(5) is not passed and the same having been passed in the present cases only on 11th April, 1995, the seized cash cannot be adjusted against the advance tax for asst. yr. 1995-96 payable by the assessees during the financial year 1994-95. The same, however, has to be treated as available for adjustment against the self-assessment tax on 11th April, 1995. (b) The seized cash, not being treated as available for adjustment against advance tax, cannot be taken into consideration for computing interest under s. 234A. However, the same being treated as available for adjustment against self-assessment tax on 11th April, 1995, interest under s. 234B should be computed after giving credit for the same. 18. The impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are, therefore, set aside and the AO is directed to recompute the interest under s. 234A, 234B and 234C as per our decision given above. 19. In the result, these appeals of the Revenue are allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 217
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prithipal Singh and Co. and affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court, then such case cannot be said to have been covered by Explanation 4 to the said section with effect from 1-4-1976 since the said Explanation cannot be so construed as to widen the scope of main section 271(1)(c) which is a charging section. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) in the present case where both the returned and finally assessed figures were loss. The same is, therefore, upheld. 15. As regards the cross objection filed by the assessee, it is observed that the same is only supportive in nature and as we have upheld the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals), it has become infructuous. Accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 214
... ...
... ... ..... tion but in this case, in view of the evidence brought by the assessee-firm, it is clear that there was no sale. There was no dissolution. There was only retirement of partners. Even after the retirement of the partners according to the deeds executed between the parties, the business of the firm was to continue and the retired partners shall have no rights in the business of the assessee. We, therefore, find much force in the stand taken by the assessee. The CIT(A) had meticulously considered all the aspects of this case in his order. The Revenue, at the time of proceedings before us, had not brought any convincing material to assail the order of the CIT(A). On a careful consideration of the entire facts, submissions and the documents, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Considering all the facts and totality of the circumstances of the case, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). Ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 211
... ...
... ... ..... cope to interfere. 55. So far as the amount of Rs.13,770 is concerned, the assessee claimed deduction 5 per cent towards saving any cost on material purchased from sources. Since no evidence was furnished by the assessee in this regard, the total excess deduction claimed by the assessee as per approved valuer rsquo s report was disallowed. The learned CIT(A) also upheld this disallowance. 56. We have carefully considered the entire matter. It is common experience that while purchasing material, efforts are made to save some portion of price by bargain, influence or by exercising relation and personal contacts. The amount claimed at 50 per cent cannot be treated to be excessive. Hence, deduction should have been allowed in our view. The Departmental authorities have not taken a reasonable view in this regard. We, therefore, allow the deduction of Rs. 13,770 and the assessee gets relief accordingly. This ground is partly allowed. 57. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 209
Central Board Of Direct Taxes ... ... ... ... ..... for that there was no need to invoke the provisions of section 119(1). We thus do not agree with the contention of the learned DR that the instructions issued under sub-section (1) of section 119 are mere internal instructions not conferring any right on the assessee to get it enforced in case of breach thereof by the subordinate I.T. Authorities. We thus decide the second issue that the instructions even issued under sub-section (1) of section 119 by the Board have got force of law conferring right on the assessee. 5. In the result, the preliminary objection raised by the learned authorised representative of the assessee is allowed and the appeal, under consideration, having tax effect below Rs. 25,000, is dismissed on the basis of Instruction No. 1903 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The kind of assistance extended and sincere efforts put by the learned Departmental Representative, Mr. P.N. Dixit, in support of the case of the Department, are highly appreciable.
........
|
