|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 292 Records
-
1992 (1) TMI 177 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... d declared an income of Rs. 17,540, the ITO had made an addition of Rs. 7,460. 6. In appeal, the learned Dy. Commissioner(A) found no justification for making the addition of Rs. 7,460 and deleted the same. But so far as the protective nature of the assessment was concerned, he similarly restored the matter to the ITO with the directions that he should follow his view to be taken in the asst. yr. 1988-89 as mentioned in the assessment order. 7. The contentions raised on both the sides as also the pattern of facts remaining the same, we are of the view that here also similar observations made by the ITO and the learned Dy. Commissioner(A) in regard to the assessment being protective and the matter being remitted to the ITO should be set aside and that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,460 will stand. Here also the Department is not in appeal and we hold that no such protective assessment could be made in law. 8. In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 175 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee. In the face of this clear contention, we are of the view that having regard to the entirety of the facts on record, no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) could be said to be leviable. The decisions referred to on behalf of the Department have been carefully gone through and we find that they proceeded on the peculiar facts in those cases. In the present case, there was no admission of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 23,154 was its income or concealed income and, therefore, the mere fact that the addition had been agreed to, could not justify the imposition of penalty. In the case of India Sea Foods in the settlement which took place between the assessee and the Department the assessee had admitted concealment, which is not the case here. The same was the position in the case of Dr. R.C. Gupta and Co. which was decided by the jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan. Therefore, as already stated above, there is no case for levy of the penalty which is accordingly cancelled.
-
1992 (1) TMI 174 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... on the basis of the books of account and system of accounting so maintained by the assessee. Unless the system of accounting is rejected or the books of account are rejected or no books of account are maintained, the income disclosed cannot be disturbed. Again rejection of books of account has also to be on a proper and reasonable basis giving instances to show that the books of account are not correct or complete. We agree with the learned Dy. CIT(A) that in the instant case far from pointing out any specific defects, the ITO has rejected the books merely on his own whims and has also estimated the income according to his own whims rather than any proper basis. We agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that the Board s circular regarding giving flat deductions for expenses in the cases of LIC agents would apply only where no accounts are maintained. 3. With these observations, we upheld the order of the learned Dy. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1992 (1) TMI 173 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ring the fact that prepaid taxes were more than the tax assessed. 4. We find that in the case of CIT vs. Builders Engineers Co. (1983) 73 CTR (Raj) 230 (1980) 175 ITR 317 (Raj) the jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan held that where there is a delay by a registered firm in filing return and the amount deducted at source is in excess of the tax assessed, the assessed tax will be zero and no penalty can be levied in such a case for the delay in filing the return under s. 271(1)(a)(i)(b). Respectfully following the said decision, we find no force in the Department s appeal which must fail and is dismissed. 5. Accordingly the appeals filed by the Department fail and are dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 171 - ITAT JAIPUR
Notice Of Reassessment, Tax Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ed Departmental Representative to the effect that the assessee had filed return in response to this notice and had not objected in the wealth-tax proceedings on a similar notice, we may observe that the wealth-tax proceedings and their contents and bjections are not before us and hence it is not necessary for us to give any comments in respect of those proceedings. However, so far as these proceedings are concerned, it is by now an accepted principle of law that the validity and legality of a notice can be challenged at any stage and the illegality and invalidity of a notice cannot be waived by an assessee. We, therefore, dismiss these objections also of the learned Departmental Representative. 14. Since we have quashed the income-tax assessment itself, it may not be necessary to deal with the other questions on merit. 15. Accordingly, the assessment framed by the Income-tax Officer under section 148 dated 17-3-1986 is annulled. 16. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
-
1992 (1) TMI 170 - ITAT JAIPUR
High Court, Income From Business, Interest On Excess Collection, Mercantile System, Sugar Manufacturing Company, Supreme Court, Writ Petition
-
1992 (1) TMI 169 - ITAT INDORE
Backward Area, Business Income, Business Loss, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ecial or different treatment to unabsorbed depreciation in this regard although it is a component element of the genus described as loss . 8. For the purposes of set off there is no time limit for unabsorbed depreciation which retains its own distinct character even in succeeding year from depreciation of the current year. 9. In view of the above discussion, we do not agree with Shri Saxena that unabsorbed depreciation is also to be deducted from business income of the current year for the purposes of computation of deduction under section 80HH. The Assessing Officer is, accordingly, directed to allow deduction under section 80HH out of the profits and gains of the assessee after adjusting brought forward business losses only, if any, against current year s profits and gains of the assessee s business. To this extent the CIT(A) s order is reversed. This ground of appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. 10 and 11. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1992 (1) TMI 168 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... d could have realised the lease amount separately for his share, since each of them have got a definite proportionate share in the common property. Simply because they join in an execution of common lease deed, no common purpose or common action can be inferred, since Sri P. Suryanarayana Raju after realising the lease amount, is obliged to distribute it in proportion to the respective share held by each co-owner. In our opinion, the ratio of the Madras High Court decision equally applies to the facts of this case and applying the same, we have to hold that the whole of the lease amount cannot be taxed commonly in the hands of all the co-owners holding the status to be that of an association of persons. On the other hand, the lease amount should be distributed according to the definite shares held by each of the co-owners and the respective share of the lease amount should be taxed in the individual hands of each co-owner. 4. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed
-
1992 (1) TMI 167 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee had not been disbelieved. The assessee could not have assumed or known at the time of filing the return that the investment on the jeep was capital expenditure. Since it was the first year of the business of the assessee, the assessee had reasonable cause for not firing the return in time. The levy of penalty was, therefore, not valid. In this case also nobody found out that her claim of loss for asst. yr. 1980-81 is false and it was never disbelieved. So long as it is not disbelieved and so long as she made her claim properly in the return, simply because for technical reasons her claim was not veted by the lower authorities in the quantum proceedings, it does not mean that her claim is not bona fide or that she had no reasonable cause in putting forward the claim of loss for asst. yr. 1980-81. 5. Thus, for all the above reasons, I hold that no penalty under s. 271(1)(a) is exigible from the assessee for asst. yr. 1982-83. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 166 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ngs, even though of an earlier assessment year earlier to 1st April, 1988. Therefore, the definition of the word record should be deemed to be retrospective and governs all the pending assessment years even though they pertain to earlier assessment years like asst. yr. 1985-86. But for the definition of the word record , the Calcutta High Court itself would not have deviated from its own decisions laid down in Smt. Uma Devi Jhawar vs. WTO and Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. vs. ITO and Ors. and would not have decided its latest decision in CIT vs. S.M. Oil Extraction (P) Ltd. differently. I have already quoted from the decision in CIT vs. S.M. Oil Extraction (P) Ltd., Under the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the CIT has no jurisdiction to invoke powers under s. 263 for exercising his revisionary powers. The order of the CIT appears to be quite justified. Under the circumstances and the appeal of the assessee does not bear any merit and hence it is dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 165 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Assessment Order, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Retrospective Effect, Tax Authorities, Valuation Report, Words And Phrases
-
1992 (1) TMI 164 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Annual Letting Value, Late Filing, Regular Assessment, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... en disbelieved. The assessee could not have assumed or known at the time of filing the return that the investment on the jeep was capital expenditure. Since it was the first year of the business of the assessee, the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the return in time. The levy of penalty was, therefore, not valid. In this case also nobody found out that her claim of loss for assessment year 1980-81 is false and it was never disbelieved. So long as it is not disbelieved and so long as she made her claim properly in the return, simply because for technical reasons her claim was not vetted by the lower authorities in the quantum proceedings, it does not mean that her claim is not bona fide or that she had no reasonable cause in putting forward the claim of loss for assessment year 1980-81. 5. Thus, for all the above reasons, I hold that no penalty under section 271(1)(a) is exigble from the assessee for assessment year 1982-83. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1992 (1) TMI 163 - ITAT DELHI-D
Current Assets ... ... ... ... ..... ptember, 1982 and returned income of Rs. 25 lakhs. This was again revised in December, 1982 and the income was estimated at Rs. 30 lakhs. Keeping in view that the fire has broken out, the estimate filed by the assessee cannot be held to be wrong. As against this, the learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the Commissioner (Appeals). 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Keeping in view the fact that fire has broken out in the factory premises of the assessee which has disrupted the entire business and damaged the property of the assessee, it could not anticipate profit as alleged. Therefore, the filing of estimate at Nil in June 1982 is bona fide. Therefore, no interest can be levied for these three months over finally assessed income. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the ITO to delete the same. 59. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 162 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... t, was not properly and fairly exercised in its eventual application. The learned Accountant Member has brought out these aspects very clearly in his order, with which I am inclined to agree and there is nothing in the order of the learned Judicial Member to contradict these findings. First I hold that the Assessing Officer made enough enquiries and secondly the assessee has brought evidence before the Commissioner of Income-tax to show that there were damaged goods and they were sold at a much lower price and there was nothing brought on record to show that those goods were sold at a higher price except a bear suspicion and conjecture, which is not enough to disturb the finality that. the assessment had acquired. 8. I, therefore, agree with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member and hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not right in setting aside the assessment. 9. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for decision according to majority opinion.
-
1992 (1) TMI 161 - ITAT DELHI-D
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... f a new and different article must emerge having a distinct name, character or use. Now in this case there has been a transformation of the yarn purchased into sewing thread. The end-product has therefore a distinct name, a distinct character and a distinct use and so different from the raw material purchased. It is therefore not a case where the principle laid down, while dealing with the cases of dyeing of grey cloth purchased can be applied. There is nothing common in between the two as was supposed by the learned Commissioner (A) too. All the cases dealt with by them were cases involving grey cloth dyed after purchase and nothing more. Since this case is factually different and involve more operations to make the yarn purchased to sewing thread to be used in sewing machines, the assessee was manufacturing sewing thread and therefore entitled to the claim of investment allowance. 9. Now the matter will go before the regular Bench for decision according to majority opinion.
-
1992 (1) TMI 160 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... s the income. 6. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the levy of penalty in this case is totally unjust and uncalled for. I agree with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member in his order that this is not a case where the penalty has been rightly imposed. 7. There is another important point to be borne in mind the explanation offered by the assessee must be found to be false before the penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) as amended with effect from 1-4-1976 are applicable. As I have endeavoured to point out above, the falsity of the explanation was not proved or not even attempted. I, therefore, agree with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member that when the explanation offered by the assessee was not found to be false, the difference between the income returned and the income estimated cannot be regarded as concealed income. 8. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for decision according to majority opinion.
-
1992 (1) TMI 159 - ITAT DELHI-C
Sales Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... e said to be claiming any deduction under those Acts. When, the assessee could not be said to be claiming any deduction of any item which is not a liability as tax or duty under any law, section 43B could not be brought in or invoked, and no addition therefore be made. We, therefore, delete addition of an amount of Rs. 419.16 lakhs made under section 43B of the Income-tax Act. 7. While coming to this conclusion, we are conscious of the decision of the tribunal in the assessee s case for the asst. year 1985-86, copy of which had been filed before us. Considering the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the appellant s own case, which by placing reliance on the Supreme Court s ratio in Chittar Mal Narain Das s case has opined that, the assessee with no freedom of a dealer and, therefore, cannot be termed a dealer and therefore is not liable under the Sales Tax Act, we were left with no alternative but to apply the above ratio. 8. In the result, the assessee succeeds
-
1992 (1) TMI 158 - ITAT DELHI-C
Capital Receipt, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... g therefrom or from any sums which may be due or may become due to the Contractor by the Govt. on any account whatsoever and in the event of his Security Deposit being reduced by reason of any such deduction, or sale as aforesaid, the Contractor shall within 10 days thereafter, make good in cash or securities, endorsed as aforesaid, any sum or sums which may have been deducted from or realised by the sale of, his Security Deposit or any part thereof. 13. In the words or from the interest arising therefrom occurring in the language of paragraph 22 above, we read an implied obligation of Union of India to pay, with a corresponding right of the assessee to receive interest on security deposit. The interest of Rs. 11,812.50 as mentioned in the award (c) is attributable to the contract between the parties and hence it makes asssessee s income liable to tax. To that extent revenue s appeal should succeed. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above
-
1992 (1) TMI 157 - ITAT DELHI-B
Authorised Representative, Scientific Research ... ... ... ... ..... n 35CCA and give a certificate to that effect which will help you to claim 100 per cent deduction of your Income-tax during the assessment year 1983-84. May the Lord bless you, Sincerely Yours, Sd/ (Swami Nityananda) Secretary. This letter proves beyond doubt the genuineness of the assessee s claim. Like this, there is enough of material on record to prove the assessee s claim beyond any shadow of doubt. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the authorities below on this issue is erroneous on facts and the assessee was unfairly deprived of the benefit of the deduction of the claim under section 80GGA. 13. The discussion about the exhausting of the time limit for the purpose of grant of deduction under section 80GGA read with section 35CCA for earning the exemption need not be discussed in the light of the view that we are taking that the donation was complete in 1983 by when the exemption granted was in full force. We, therefore, allow the assessee s appeal
-
1992 (1) TMI 156 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... d from Chemical Division 4. 1987-88(1.1.86 to 31.12.86) 1.8.86 Taiyo Mitsubishi Diesel Generating Set (Japan) 1146 KVA user w.e.f. 1.9.86 Rs. 63,39,800 380 KVA Cummins Kirloskar Diesel Generating Set, 1500 rpm Rs. 8,84,480 User w.e.f. Aug. 86. . NOTE (1) Servre power-cuts were imposed by the Haryana State Electricity Board (H.S.E.B.) on industries inFaridabadin 1978 (as evidenced by photocopies of some of the HSEB orders en closed) resulting in acute scarcity of power supply. (2) Ours is a Chemical Processing Industry where the machine and Plant is running round the clock non-stop for 24 hours in 3 shifts, and stolppage of machinery and Plant even for half an hour results in total damage of the materials under process of manufacture. In view of 40 to 60 power cut with no supply on 2 days in a week, the generator becomes an indispensable alternate source of Electric supply for ensuring the continuous running of the profit earning apparatus (machinery and plant) of the Company.
............
|
