Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 241 Records
-
1983 (1) TMI 102 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Carrying On Business, Partnership Firm, Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... e, then only the Valuation Officer can ignore the rental income shown by the assessee and thereafter arrive at the fair market value of the property. However, before rejecting the assessee s version about the rental income it will be for the Valuation Officer to find out the rental income if the property were to be let out at Hanumangarh without any concessional element, in other words, it has to be established first by proper evidence and material that the rent charged by the assessee and the other two co-owners was low and concessional and the market rent was higher. 8. In view of the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the combined order of the AAC and the orders of the WTO on this point and consequently, vacate the findings of both the authorities and restore the issue to the WTO for fresh disposal in accordance with law for all the five assessment years after hearing the assessee. 9. For statistical purposes only, all the five appeals may be treated to be allowed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 101 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ... ... ... ..... r export to their destination outside India and on insurance of such goods while in transit. 10. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee was fair enough to state that in view of the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Happy Sound Industries, he cannot possibly challenge the decision of the CIT(Appeals) on this point. However, he hastened to state that since the reference is pending in the Hon ble High Court against the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee has taken up this ground with a view to keep the matter alive. The ld. representative for the department, on the other hand, supported the action of the IT Authorities. 11. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and in view of what is stated above as well as following the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Happy Sound Industries, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this point. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 100 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ... ... ... ..... rofit of the assessee should not be accepted. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 56,206 as sustained by the CIT (Appeals). 11. The last contention relates to disallowance of Rs. 3914. The CIT (Appeals) has mentioned that Shri Priya Saran Garg and Shri Naveli Saran Garg were partners in the assessee firm in their individual capacities. Interest aggregating to Rs. 3914 was, however, paid to their respective HUFs. The ITO disallowed this interest u/s 40(b) of the Act. The disallowance was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. London Machinery Co. (1979) 10 CTR (All) 301 (1979) 117 ITR 111 (All). 12. After hearing the parties, we are of the view that the disallowance is uncalled for in view of the later decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Lal and Sons vs. CIT (1980) 15 CTR (All) 74 (1980) 124 ITR 157 (All). We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 3914. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 99 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ... ... ... ..... her as alleged by her for making donation/meeting expenses, it is a fact that she made a donation of Rs. 151 only. Similarly, Smt. Mahendra Kaur had not given any cogent and valid evidence to support her claim that she had Rs. 3,000 in cash with her. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the ITO was fully justified in treating Rs. 15,976 as income from undisclosed sources of the assessee in respect of the asst. yr. 1977-78. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the AAC in respect of the gifts from S. Pritam Singh and Smt. Bhagwati Devi in respect of the asst. yr. 1976-77 and restore that of the ITO. Similarly, we set aside the order of the AAC in respect of the asst. yr. 1977-78 in respect of the assessee s explanation regarding the cash of Rs. 6,700, Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 5,000 and restore the order of the ITO in this regard. 7. In the result, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1976-77 is partly allowed and that for the asst. yr. 1977-78 is allowed in full.
-
1983 (1) TMI 98 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ... ... ... ..... d Vikram Kothari would become partners in the assessee firm in their individual capacities. We, therefore, see no reason why the assessee firm could not be allowed the benefit of registration. 9. Even otherwise, the CIT(A) has clearly brought out the distinguishing feature of the assessee s case from that of the Kedia Yarn Traders. Kedia Yarn Traders came into existence vide partnership deed dt. 12th June, 1976. The execution of the trust deed was on 14th June, 1976. That threw doubt whether Kedia Yarn Traders was genuinely constituted. There is no dispute in the present case that the assessee firm was constituted on 29th June, 1976, i.e., after the execution of the trust deeds. The assessee firm, therefore, could not be treated as sham on the grounds on which Kedia Yarn Traders was not granted registration. For all these reasons, we agree with the findings of the CIT(A) that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of registration. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 97 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ... ... ... ..... ad not offered any explanation regarding the nature and source of Rs. 13,000 added in its total income, we entirely agree with the submissions made on behalf of the revenue that the assessee would not be entitled to get benefit of the proviso to Explanation (1) of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as applicable in the instant case. We would, therefore, uphold the action of the IT Authorities imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. However, we entirely agree with the alternative submissions made on behalf of the assessee that since the assessee had filed its return of income on 10th February, 1978, provisions as they stood on that day would be applicable, in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan. We would, therefore, direct the ITO to re-work the quantum of penalty imposable u/s. 27(1)(c) of the Act with reference to the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee and give necessary relief if any. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 96 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Any Service ... ... ... ... ..... iness inter se. The ITO has not made any enquiry to find out whether the lady members were also actively engaged in the conduct of the business or that they were responsible for procuring the orders from time to time from Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. He has also made any enquiry from Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. I do not agree with the finding of the learned Judicial Member that there is no proof on the record to show that Photo Colour had not rendered any services to the assessee or that it was not entitled to the commission agreed upon. I need not repeat here that such evidence was produced before the ITO in the earlier two years and after having been satisfied that the services had been rendered he had allowed the assessee s claim. 14. In the result, I agree with the findings of the learned Accountant Member and answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 15. The case will now go back to the Bench for passing the order in conformity with my above view.
-
1983 (1) TMI 95 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
A Partner, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... that the estimate of Rs. 2,000 out of building repairs for expenses of capital nature, was perfectly justified and particularly when on this amount depreciation was also allowed by the IAC (Assessment). Alternatively, Shri Upadhyay argued that if this disallowance was to be deleted, the depreciation allowed on this disallowance should also be withdrawn. 19. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the absence of any specific item out of the building repair expenses, which could be said to have resulted in an asset or advantage of enduring benefit, the disallowance out of building repair expenses, in out view, does not appear to be justified and is hereby deleted. It follows, therefore, that the depreciation on this amount allowed in the assessment should also be withdrawn. 20. The other grounds of appeal, both for the assessment year 1975-76 and for the assessment year 1976-77 were not pressed before us at the time of hearing. 21. The appeals are partly allowed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 94 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Charitable Trust, Diversion By Overriding Title, Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title, Total Income
-
1983 (1) TMI 93 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Assessment Year, Cash System, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... eme relating to payment of gratuity. It was pointed out that when a claim is already allowed, but subsequently is required to be withdrawn a statutory provision is made to enable the taxing authorities to withdraw the claim or allowance already granted. In this connection, the provision relating to development rebate as laid down in section 155(5) of the Act may be referred. In other words, in absence of any statutory provision to enable the taxing authorities to tax the impugned amount which has already been allowed in the past years, the action of the learned Commissioner to direct the ITO to tax the amount as income of the year is wholly unwarranted. The order of the ITO, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. There is absolutely no material to support that finding as reached by the learned Commissioner. The order as made by the Commissioner under section 263 is hereby quashed and that of the ITO is restored.
-
1983 (1) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
... ... ... ... ..... sentence him to any term of jail sentence, considering the nature of breach, as committed by him and also considering the material circumstances that confiscation of 208 bags of tobacco has already been ordered by the trial Court - the same being valued at Rs. 10,665.10 being the proceeds of the public auction consequent to confiscation. 6. In the result, thus, allowing the appeal for enhancement of sentence, it is ordered in modification of the trial Court s order that the respondents accused, on his conviction under Rule 151(c) and (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, be and is now sentenced to pay the fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) and in default of fine, to undergo nine months simple imprisonment. All fine amount be paid within two months from now, failing which, the respondent-accused be remanded to the judicial custody to undergo the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
-
1983 (1) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Demand raised after vacation of Court injunction - Removal of goods without payment of duty due to Court Judgment
-
1983 (1) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Duty not levied due to injunction of Court — Short levy — Writ Petition if dismissed — Liability to pay duty is revived
-
1983 (1) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Valuation - Precedent - Suit rejected ... ... ... ... ..... tions for interest do not survive and they are dismissed with costs. 23. At this stage Mr. Nanavati prays for a certificate of fitness for preferring an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 132(1) and also under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. It is already brought to our notice that the very questions involved in the present appeal and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Calico Mills (supra), to which we have referred, are before the Supreme Court. The Full Bench also granted certificate under Article 131(1) and Article 133 of the Constitution of India. As this case also involves substantial questions as to interpretation of Constitution of India and also substantial questions of law of general importance, which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, we grant the certificate as prayed for on behalf of the respondent-company. 24. Status quo to continue for two weeks from the date on which the certified copy of this judgment is delivered.
-
1983 (1) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Additional duty - Exemption - Taxable event - Import duty ... ... ... ... ..... h the aforesaid reasoning of the Assistant Industrial Adviser. The mere reading of the conditions contained in the aforesaid Customs Notification show that the manufacture of the components, in which the imported article is to be used, is to be by the importer himself and those manufactured components are to be used in the vehicles. In other words, the benefit of the said Customs Notification is available to the actual users and not to an Export House, like the petitioners, who may be importing for sale to actual users. The programme of manufacture which has to be approved by the Industrial Adviser of the Directorate General of Technical Development is to be the programme of the actual user importer and not of any one else. As admittedly the petitioners are not the manufacturers they were not entitled to avail of the benefit of the said Customs Notification. 23. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1000/- per writ petition.
-
1983 (1) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF M.P., INDORE
Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked if appellate decision acquiesced by the party - Precedent
-
1983 (1) TMI 86 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rules 9 and 49 of Excise Rules' - Valid and Constitutional - Dutiability of intermediary products - Intermediary process - Dutiability - Yarn
-
1983 (1) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT
Delay In Filing, Limitation, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... n can be prescribed by law. In any event one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down either under the rules made by the High Court or by practice. In every case it would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances whether the petitioner is guilty of laches and that would have to be done without taking into account any specific period as a period of limitation. There may be cases where even a short delay may be fatal while there may be cases where even a long delay may not be evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner. We would, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and remand the writ petition to the High Court so that the High Court may dispose of it on the merits in accordance with law. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and direct that the writ petition may be disposed of by the High Court on merits in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (1) TMI 83 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... tances to show that the user as such, or even part of the user, was assigned to the tenant. In the circumstances, it would appear to us that both the lifts and the air-conditioning plant were wholly used by the assessee for business purposes and for no other purpose. Our answers to the questions referred to us would thus be that we would answer the first question in the negative to hold that proportionate depreciation was not allowable in respect of the let out portion. We would answer the second question in the affirmative by holding that full depreciation was allowable regarding the lifts and the air-conditioning plant, and we would answer the third question in the affirmative by holding that development rebate was allowable regarding the lifts and the airconditioning plant as they were used wholly for business by the assessee. As the questions are answered partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Department, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1983 (1) TMI 82 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... record, can be held to be non-agricultural one because of the use it had been put for the last several years before the sale. Similarly, a land which originally might be non-agricultural can later become an agricultural land and on the materia Is on record can be held as such for the purpose of determining the liability for the capital gain. So far as the instant case is concerned, I have pointed out that the Tribunal has referred to different materials on the basis of which it has come to the conclusion that on the date of sale the lands in question, were agricultural in nature. In my view, on the facts as stated by the Tribunal, its conclusion that the land sold by the assessee was an agricultural land and that capital, gain tax was not chargeable on the sale thereof is valid and correct. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the Department. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA J.-I agree.
............
|