|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 144 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 1082
... ...
... ... ..... o the conclusion of the Tribunal about the proper method to be applied for valuation of the gifted property. The Tribunal held that taking into account the peculiar circumstances that the property was tenanted and the tenant was occupying house since long and was continuing even after the gift, indicated that rent capitalisation method was the proper method. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the position would be different after 1989, but when the proceedings related to an earlier period, the method adopted by the Tribunal would not be proper. 4. It is not in dispute that rent capitalisation method is one of the approved methods of the valuation of an immovable property, which is let out. Findings of the Tribunal to which we have made reference above are essentially factual. That being the position, in our view, no question of law arises which is to be answered. We, Therefore, decline to answer the question referred. 5. Reference is, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1043
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd. (supra) is also followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mettur Chemical & Industrial Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT 1996 217 ITR 7681 wherein Their Lordships held as under "The profits and gains of an industrial undertaking to which section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies have to be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter IV-D of the Act and development rebate has first to be deducted from the total income and it is only thereafter, if any profits and gains remain from this business, that the benefit under section 84(1) of the Income-tax Act would be applicable." In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the Assessing Officer was fully justified in allowing the depreciation before computing the income for the purpose of deduction under sections 80HHC and 80-I. We, therefore, find no merit in the assessee’s appeal. The same is dismissed. 13. In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1042
... ...
... ... ..... stance in the contention of Mr RK Patel for the assessee that the provisions of section 41(2) govern only building, machinery, plant or furniture and that, therefore, other assets cannot be included within the scope of Section 41(2) for taxing the difference between the written down value and the actual cost. We also find that in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, transfer will not attract the provisions of Section 45 relating to capital gains if the transfer of capital assets is by a Company to its wholly owned subsidiary Company and the holding Company as well as the subsidiary Company are Indian Companies. 21. In view of the above discussion, our answer to question No. 1 is in the negative to the above extent i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Our answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative to the above extent i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The references accordingly stand disposed of with no order as to costs
-
2001 (3) TMI 1041
... ...
... ... ..... gross profit rate accepted by the Assessing Officer, in the petitioner’s case for last number of years varying from minimum of 14.41 per cent to maximum of 24.51 per cent and held that in the peculiar circumstance of the case it is reasonable to accept the quantum of suppressed sales at the figure determined by the sales tax authorities while determining the levy of sales tax under that Act and looking to the material on record, directed to apply 19 per cent as gross profit rate. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances it is clear that the findings about the quantum of suppressed sales as well as the gross profit rate to be applied were founded on appreciation of evidence and these are findings of fact, which do not give rise to any question of law and, therefore, the application was rightly rejected and we do not find that the order of the Tribunal under section 256(2) is erroneous in any manner. The application, accordingly, fails and is rejected with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1035
... ...
... ... ..... , therefore, fall within the ambit of article 13 of the Treaty. We answer question No. 13 by saying that the applicant has to file a return of income in India under the provisions of section 139 of the Income-tax Act even if he is entitled to exemptions and deductions under it and also the benefit of the Treaty between India and Mauritius. In view of the answer to question No. 13, question No. 14 need not be separately answered. Question No. 15 is answered by saying if the applicant is liable to pay income-tax in India, he is under an obligation to file a return of income. Non-filing of return will attract penal provisions of section 271(1)(b). Question No. 16 is already concluded by the principles laid down in the judgment of the Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of Societe General, France in the order No. A. A. R. 362 of 1997, dated April 4, 1998. Mere charging of a higher rate of tax does not constitute discrimination between a domestic and a non-domestic company.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1031
... ...
... ... ..... hence, they are illegal, without jurisdiction and bad in law. The order of CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside. The assessee, therefore, succeeds on the additional ground of appeal pertaining to initiation of proceedings under section 147. 7. As the reassessment was void ab initio, we are of the opinion that any additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) in that assessment automatically stand deleted. Though the arguments by both the sides were given on the additions as listed in the original grounds of appeal yet we are of the opinion that no mention of the same is required to be made here and no adjudication is required in respect of the same, the reassessment having been declared ab initio void. Similarly the other additional ground of appeal filed on 20-12-1999 is also not required to be considered as all the additions stand automatically deleted when the reassessment is declared ab initio void. 8. In fine, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1028
... ...
... ... ..... application of income during the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 and whether the assessee was entitled to avail of the benefit under sections 11, 12 and 12A of the Income-tax Act. We are keeping the contentions on both sides open on the above points. Writ Petition No. 2490 of 2000 disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. We are not disposing of the present reference. We are remitting the matter to the Tribunal for its decision only on the above two points. We will consider the reference after we receive the findings from the Tribunal on the above two points. Therefore, the reference is kept pending on the file of this court. The said reference is adjourned to December 3, 2001. Office is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal without any delay. The copy of this judgment to be authenticated by the associate. Office is directed to return R and P to the Tribunal if such R and P is lying in the High Court. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1021
... ...
... ... ..... of the Legislature to tax such interest, it would have easily included in section 2(7) of the Act by saying- "‘Interest’ means interest on loans and advances made in India and includes- (a)Commitment charges......in India; (b)Discount on promissory notes......In India; and (c)Interest on securities as defined in sub-section (28B) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act......" But such is not the case and hence our conclusion. 59. Finally, we hold that interest on debentures, bonds and Government securities is not chargeable to tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 and hence addition thereof in total chargeable interest is deleted for all the years under consideration. 60. Before parting, we put on record our appreciation for the erudite arguments advanced by Mr. S.D. Kapila and Mr. D.J. Tralshawala on behalf of the department, and by Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, the learned counsel for the assessee. 61. In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1011
... ...
... ... ..... section 226(3) against the bankers. As held by the Tribunal under similar circumstances in the case of RPG Enterprises (supra) and for the same reasons given in the said order, we direct as follows (i)The Assessing Officer shall refund the amount of Rs. 43,65,82,270 collected under section 226(3) within a period of two weeks from the date of service of this order (ii)The recovery of the aforesaid amount is stayed till the disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal on condition that the assessee furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer within the same time limit as stated above (iii)That the appeal shall be posted for hearing on 2nd April, 2001, the date suggested by Mr. Dastur for the assessee and that the assessee shall not request for any adjournment on that date. The Registry to serve this order on both the parties forthwith along with the notice posting the appeal for hearing as directed above. 27. The stay application is allowed in the above terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 817
Assessment - Additions to income ... ... ... ... ..... turnover of the assessee. Assessing Officer had allowed expenses under this head to the tune of Rs. 40,000 and added back balance sum of Rs. 15,133. On appeal, CIT(A) has upheld the action of Assessing Officer. 4.1 Before us, ld. counsel has submitted that the assessee required labour for manufacturing ice-cones, sales effected during the assessment year was at Rs. 4,91,921, therefore, estimate made by Assessing Officer in respect of wages and salary at Rs. 40,000 is unreasonable. We find some force in the said submission of ld. counsel. On facts and circumstances of the case, we estimate the wages and salary paid to labourers at Rs. 50,000. Accordingly, we restrict the disallowance at Rs. 5,133. 5. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 relating to disallowance of Rs. 3,000 out of travelling expenses and Rs. 5,000 out of telephone expenses have not been pressed by ld. counsel before us. Accordingly, these two grounds are rejected as not pressed. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
2001 (3) TMI 816
Unexplained investments ... ... ... ... ..... on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). 3. After hearing the parties to the dispute, I find that the issue in dispute is covered by the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. (supra) wherein the court has held as under Even if the subscribers to the increased share capital of assessee-company were not genuine, the amount could not be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee-company. The Tribunal having cancelled CIT rsquo s order under section 263 whereby the assessment was set aside on the ground that Assessing Officer had accepted the genuineness of share capital without making enquiries, no question of law arises. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and also the fact that these persons have paid the call money due on the specified dates, it can not be said that the amounts invested in the names of these persons can be undisclosed income of the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 814
... ...
... ... ..... 0RR was allowable on the entire amount brought into India by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange. He also relied on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench (SB) in the case of Petroleum India International v. Dy. CIT 1999 71 ITD 31 (241 ITR (AT) page 43 , though it pertains to section 80-O. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and the facts and circum-stances of the case. We find that matter stands covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 28-5-1998 in ITA No. 5588/Bom./1991 passed in assessee rsquo s case for assessment year 1987-88. It may be noted that even in this year the assessee has not incurred any expenditure and only net income was received in foreign exchange. Therefore, consistent with the view taken by the ITAT in the preceding year, the claim of the assessee deserves to be accepted. We, therefore, hold that there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 294
... ...
... ... ..... o. 7 reads as under On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the sum of Rs. 27,924 on the ground that the payment of the sum was made after the end of the year. 27. This ground is against the addition of Rs. 27,824, the facts about which have been discussed in the preceding paras. The addition has been deleted by the CIT(A) with the following remarks I have considered the contentions of the appellant. The AO himself has observed on facts that the payment of the sum of Rs. 28,824 was made after the end of the year. Therefore, he was not justified in making the above addition to the income of the year under consideration. The same is therefore, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 27,824 in respect of this ground. 28. After hearing both the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the above remarks of the CIT(A) and accordingly decline to interfere. This ground also fails and is dismissed. 29. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 293
... ...
... ... ..... sary. In Black rsquo s Dictionary, the word lsquo detection rsquo has several meanings. One of them is lsquo investigation rsquo . The other is to follow step by step by cogent enquiry or observation. In the present case, even though a diary was seized during the course of search, there was neither any investigation by the AO nor there was any action to follow step by step by cogent enquiry. The seized diary remained in the custody of the Department for three years and the assessee inspected the diary and on the basis of entries made in the diary, he came up voluntarily with the revised returns. There was no concealment of any fact on the part of the assessee because the diary and books of account were in the possession of the Department. Under the circumstances, the charge of concealment cannot be attributed to the assessee. 9. In the light of above discussion, we see no justification for the impugned penalties and delete the same. 10. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 292
... ...
... ... ..... .L. Trivedi and Sons (1993) 115 CTR (Guj) 535, the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply to income-tax proceedings and by non-deduction of TDS in time which attracts interest under s. 201(1A) and penalty under s. 271C, the assessee cannot claim concession/benefit in regard to default attracting penalty under ss. 272A(2)(c) and 272A(2)(g). Thus, non-deduction of TDS or delay in depositing TDS to Government account can certainly not be taken as reasonable cause for not filing returns. Accordingly, I reverse the findings of the CIT(A) and restore those of the AO. These appeals are accordingly allowed. 14. In the results, the appeals are allowed. ITAs Nos. 913 to 915/Pn/1998 15. These appeals relate to penalties under s. 271C which have been cancelled by the CIT(A) consequent to his own order in appeals Nos. 907 to 909/Pn/1998. These appeals are also allowed for the reasons given in my order relating to ITA Nos. 907 to 909/Pn/1998. 16. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 285
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... t, it was only because the assessee did not want to litigate further, but it is not as if that even though he did not dispute the point in the assessment that he could not dispute it again in the penalty proceedings as held by us supra that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. 23. As regards the difference in valuation of the building, the CIT(A) has rightly pointed out that the ultimate difference was of Rs. 85,551 and this was much less than 10 per cent of the cost shown by the assessee. In these circumstances, increase in the value cannot be attributed to any concealment but such difference can arise on account of honest difference of opinion and, accordingly, we hold that no penalty was leviable in respect of that item. 24. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that there is no justification for the impugned penalty and the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same. We accordingly decline to interfere. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 284
Double Taxation Agreement With France, Income, Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India. ... ... ... ... ..... shing of know-how in the form of drawings and designs consideration for which may be described as Royalty. In the case before us, the facts are closer to the High Court decision and in fact much stronger. Further the drawings and designs in that case were relating to erection of a galvanising plant which could be termed as right to use models, plans or designs and the technical information or experiences related to such designs and documentation. On the contrary, the very same Delhi Bench considered a case much similar to that of the assessee in DCM Ltd. v. ITO 1988 31 TTJ Delhi 171 where payment made to carry out certain study (as in the assessee s case also) was considered as payment for technical services and in the nature of technical fees. 12. In the light of above discussion, we reverse the findings of the authorities below and hold that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 195(2) of the Act. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 281
Return Of Income, Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ire facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, we are of the view that the impugned notice cannot be said in conformity with or according to the intent or purpose of the Act. In fact, it is a case of failure to issue notice under section 148 on the right entity of two persons which has rendered the entire proceedings as null and void. Even otherwise, the defects pointed out are vital which goes to the root of the matter and cannot be saved by recourse to the provisions of section 292B as held by Kerala High Court in the case of P.N. Sasikumar and clarified by the Board in circular No. 179 dated 30-9-1975. The case law referred to by the ld. D.R. are not directly on the point before us and are distinguishable on facts. 16. In view of the above discussion, we do not find merit in the arguments put forth on behalf of the revenue. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal dated 5-7-2000. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 280
Interest, Interpretation Of Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... 143(3) for the assessment year under appeal has admitted that the assessee is a leasing company and also granted depreciation on the leased equipments as per chart enclosed with the assessment order a copy of which has been placed before us by the learned counsel of the assessee. We further find that the Assessing Officer has further granted depreciation on the Entry-tax paid by the assessee on re-possessed vehicles which were earlier leased as addition to their cost. This clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has accepted that the ownership of the leased equipment was and is with the assessee-company. 10. In the light of above discussion, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the assessee-company is a leasing company and not a loan company as envisaged in section 2(5B)(iv) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 and accordingly, it is not liable to Interest-tax. We accordingly confirm his findings and decline to interfere. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 273
... ...
... ... ..... ting to revive the business because the assessee had shown a sale of Rs. 11,300 in subsequent year 1994-95. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the first appellate authority that there was only a temporary full in the business and as such the assessee was entitled to set off the current loss from the business against the current income from the profession. Since we have considered that there was loss from the business during the relevant assessment years and as sections 28 and 70 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as discussed above entitle the assessee to set off the business loss against the income from profession, we do not find any necessity to discuss the catena of case laws relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative and the assessee s learned Counsel. 12. In view of the observations above in the fight of the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to uphold the order of the first appellate authority. The Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
........
|
