|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1268 Records
-
1977 (11) TMI 78 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ied the order on 20th Dec., 1975. This order was served on the assessee on 18th Feb., 1976. The ITO issued a show cause notice for non-payment of tax of Rs. 11,995. This show cause notice was served on 16th March, 1976. The assessee paid the tax on 20th March, 1976. 2. The ITO treated the assessee as a defaulter and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000. On appeal it was reduced to Rs. 500. The assessee is on further appeal before us. 3. We are of opinion that the penalty has to be cancelled. It is true that the assessee had not paid the undisputed tax but then the challan which was given to him with the demand notice could not be used as it bore an amount different from the actual dues. The ITO himself was at fault for having been lethargic in the matter of rectifying the demand. After the demand was rectified the tax was paid within a reasonable time. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that a penalty has to be imposed for default of payment of tax. 4. The appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (11) TMI 77 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... of the profit sharing ratio each partner is jointly and severally responsible for the debts of the firm. It is only for IT purpose that the profit sharing ratio becomes equally important as the constitution of the firm. 9. All the points arising from Shri Perumall s submissions are answered here. The one mistake in posting the ledger accounts had fathered all the mistakes in the partner s returns of income tax as well as the wealth-tax. Had this constitution been continued in the next year perhaps the partners would have become alert but the deed dt. 2nd April, 1975 had a life of only one year. There was a change again in the next year and it is this change which lulled the partners from looking into the actual position during this year. 10. We are satisfied that there was only an error of posting and as the Kerala High Court has pointed out in 71 ITR 109 a mere error in posting out in the accounts cannot disentitle the assessee from registration. 11. The appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (11) TMI 76 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... rchases. What is gifted by the assessee is the right of life estates to the relatives. To that extent there is a gift. Even though the assessee has filed a nil return the assessee has when this was pointed out to him by us accepted that fact. So, that right gifted has to be valued. The assessee had along with the return furnished before the GTO given a valuation of the right gifted. We also looked into that computation contained in the paper book. It is an acceptable valuation. It would out to Rs. 46,073. So we will fix the value of the gift at Rs. 46,100 as regards the creation of life estates. Towards that the statutory exemption will have to be given. So the total value of the taxable gift will be Rs. 41,100. 10. Appeal allowed in part. The gift-tax assessment will be revised by substituting the figure of Rs. 41,100 (Rupees forty one thousand and one hundred only) for Rs. 1,73,000 (Rupees one lakh and seventy three thousand only) adopted in the assessment order of the GTO.
-
1977 (11) TMI 75 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... d that these goods are not included in the stock register of the firm as on 31st march, 1975. On the basis of this material of recovery by the Police the ITO came to the conclusion that the assessee individual had a regular business in smuggled goods in these two assessment years also the income of which is not disclosed to the Department. So, he estimated an income of Rs. 4,500 for each of the two assessment years. The AAC reduced it to Rs. 2,500 per assessment year. The assessee appeals for total deletion. 3. The quantity of materials seized as shown in the list above are not at all sufficient to hold that the assessee is dealer in smuggled goods. These can as well be the personal belonging of the assessee. So there is absolutely no material to hold that the assessee individual dealt in smuggled goods and derived income therefrom. 4. Therefore, these two appeals are allowed. Even the addition of Rs. 2,500 sustained by the AAC in each of the two assessment years is deleted.
-
1977 (11) TMI 74 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... me in respect of the second period. On principle, the learned Counsel for the assessee does not dispute the contention of learned Departmental Representative. Even so, the penalty as reduced by the AAC cannot be restored because there is a mistake in the calculation of penalty in the ITO s order. The ITO calculated the penalty on the basis of s. 273(i)(1) but ignored the provisions of s. 273(i)(2). The lesser of the two penalties as calculated under s. 273(i)(1) or s. 273(i)(2) has to be levied and the correct penalty leviable would have been Rs. 616 as under Amount Payable under s. 210 Rs. 8,000 Less tax already paid Rs. 1,842 . Rs. 6,158 10 per cent thereof Rs. 616 It is only the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 616 which was required to be levied by the ITO. Since the penalty sustained by the AAC is more than the penalty of Rs. 616 which was leviable, no part of the penalty is required to be restored. 7. For statistical purposes, the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
-
1977 (11) TMI 73 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 5) 101 ITR 46 (Guj) the learned advocate further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court amounted to a declaration of law as contemplated by Art. 141 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the Punjab and Haryana High court judgment on the basis of which the Revenue wants the Tribunal s decision to be recalled, should not be followed because such a course would run contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kundan Lal Behari Lal s case. 4. After hearing the parties, we hold that the Revenue s miscellaneous application is misconceived because in the first place the Supreme Court judgement in Kundan Lal Benari Lal s case is a clear authority for the proposition that the word issue means serve and more important is the fact that the judgment given in the assessee s own case (1975) 101 ITR 106 is binding whereas the judgment in Jai Hanuman Trading Co. (P) Ltd. s case would be a precedent to be followed. 5. The Revenue s miscellaneous application is dismissed.
-
1977 (11) TMI 72 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... of the parties and their dealings, part performance of contract by both the sides, presentation of the conveyance deed by 30th June, 1972, absence of Chapter XXA of the Act on 30th June, 1972, the delay caused in registration for no fault of the transferee, the absence of s.269F(9) in the draft Bill, the natural and the expected conduct of the society members interested in doing business but not expected to be experts in law, etc. can lead to no other conclusion but that the understatement if any could not have been with object of facilitating evasion of tax by the transferor or concealment of income or assets by the transferee. That being so, the fourth condition in our opinion cannot be said to be satisfied and even on this ground the Competent Authority would not be justified in initiating the proceedings under s. 269C(1) of the Act. 37. Having come to these different conclusions, we have necessarily to cancel the order under s.269F(6) of the Act and we do so accordingly.
-
1977 (11) TMI 71 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... ffer any comment. 9. Shri D Souza submitted that the word employment used in s. 16(i) is a collective term embracing all the employments of the particular assessee in a given assessment year. In our opinion, this is a bare submission which is not supported by the plain meaning of the language used in s. 16 nor the scheme of ss. 14 to 17. 10. For the reasons stated earlier, we hold that the assessee is entitled to a standard deduction from the salary derived by him from each of his two employments in the year under consideration. Though the AAC has dealt with the matter on the assumption that the assessee wanted a deduction of Rs. 7,000 in all, Shri Rao very fairly accepted that as the assessee was receiving a conveyance allowance from one of the companies, the restriction under the provision to s. 16(i) came into play and the assessee is entitled to a further deduction of Rs. 1,000 only in the view which we have taken. We direct accordingly. 11. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1977 (11) TMI 70 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... fixation of the turnover for the there years in question, the assessing authority has not given any basis or material to arrive at a particular turnover. When there is no basis or material for fixation of turnover, it cannot be said that the said orders are proper and regular orders. We are fully convinced and satisfied that the orders of the assessing authority are improper and irregular especially when the appellant was entangled in civil litigation and his shop was attached along with certain documents. Considering all these aspects, we answer the question framed by us in negative. Therefore, the common suo motu order of the Asstt. CCT as well as the assessment orders hereby set aside and the case are remanded back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal as per law. 7. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed and the case are remanded to the assessing authority for fresh disposal. However, there shall be no refund of institution fee in all the three appeals.
-
1977 (11) TMI 69 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ve been paid out of the HUF funds towards the premium due on the policies. The assessee has given up his claim in respect of this amount and deduction under s. 80C is not claimed in that respect. So the assessee has restricted his claim in respect of that amount only which has been actually paid by him. It is not disputed that the assessee paid the premium out of his own income to the extent of Rs. 3,462. In view of clause(a) of sub-s. (2) of s. 80C, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in that respect. The mere fact that, in the earlier years, the entire amount was paid by the HUF and that claimed the deduction under s. 80C, does not deprive the assessee to make a claim for deduction under s. 80C in respect of the payment actually made by him. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80C sub-s. (2) cl. (a) of the Act, 1961 in respect of the sum of Rs. 3,462 actually paid by him. 3. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1977 (11) TMI 68 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... pointed out that the order of the AAC for the earlier year which had been made the basis for making this disallowance in this year had since been reversed by the Tribunal and the entire amount paid as commission was allowed as a deduction. Shri Garg, therefore, claimed that the disallowance sustained by the AAC should be deleted. Shri Shukla on behalf of the Department supported the order of the AAC. 8. We find that the AAC had sustained the disallowance of Rs. 6,389 on the basis of his order in the case of the assessee for asst. yr. 1972-73. That order of the AAC has since been reversed by the Tribunal by order dt. 23rd Nov., 1976 in ITA No. 1434 (Alld.)/75-76. Therefore, for reasons mentioned in the Tribunal s order for the preceding year, we hold that the AAC was not justified in sustaining the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 6,389. The same is deleted. 9. The other grounds were not pressed. The same are, therefore, rejected. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1977 (11) TMI 67 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ing the receipt of any such commission have re-relevance. Keeping all these facts in view we are unable to hold that the charge of concealment is proved against the assessee. 8. The decision on the case of D.M. Manasvi has no application in view of our above mentioned finding. In that case it had been held that the assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of his income. There is no such evidence in the present case. The decision in the case of P.M.A.P. Ayyamperumal Nadar also does not help the Department as in the present case the materials gathered at the stage of assessment proceedings do not show that the assessee had concealed its income. In the case of Gates Foam and Rubber Co. the claim for commission shown to have been paid by the assessee was found to be bogus and it was conclusively established that the entry showing that payment was false. There is no evidence in the present case. 9. In view of the above, we cancel the penalty order and allow the appeal.
-
1977 (11) TMI 66 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ing the receipt of any such commission have re-relevance. Keeping all these facts in view we are unable to hold that the charge of concealment is proved against the assessee. 8. The decision on the case of D.M. Manasvi has no application in view of our above mentioned finding. In that case it had been held that the assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of his income. There is no such evidence in the present case. The decision in the case of P.M.A.P. Ayyamperumal Nadar also does not help the Department as in the present case the materials gathered at the stage of assessment proceedings do not show that the assessee had concealed its income. In the case of Gates Foam and Rubber Co. the claim for commission shown to have been paid by the assessee was found to be bogus and it was conclusively established that the entry showing that payment was false. There is no evidence in the present case. 9. In view of the above, we cancel the penalty order and allow the appeal.
-
1977 (11) TMI 65 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t, he shall also consider the question as to whether the appellant is entitled to administrative relief granted by the Government in view of the Supreme Court decision. 7. In the result, all these second appeals are allowed. The orders of the STO confirmed by the learned Asstt. CST levying penalties in all the three periods to the extent of the amounts of tax already paid by the appellant are held to be bad in law and they are set aside. However, all these matters are sent back to the STO to consider whether the sales made by the appellant are liable to tax in view of the Supreme Court decision reported in 37 STC 319. If the sales are held not liable to tax, then the amount levied by way of penalty may be refunded to the appellant. It the sales are held liable to tax, the STO shall then considered whether the appellant is entitled to administrative relief granted by the Government in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and then decide the matters accordingly.
-
1977 (11) TMI 64 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Cost of special packing excludible - Price List ... ... ... ... ..... the difference in value was on the ground that the invoice price included loading and unloading charges, freight, open delivery charges, company s representative s expenses at the destination, recutting charges, service charges etc. These charges were however not indicated separately nor were identifiable inasmuch as one could not say with certainty how much could be attributed to a particular head. Since the invoices of the relevant period do not show the difference in price on account of factors contended by the petitioners deductions on account of these factors cannot be allowed. When they were heard by one of us earlier, they were asked to submit some of these activities alone. They, however, expressed their inability to do so. In the circumstances the question of any deduction account of these factors does not arise for consideration and in the absence of the same, the demand of differential duty is held to be in order. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1977 (11) TMI 63 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Discounts - Admissibility ... ... ... ... ..... at arms length in term of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 prior to its amendment. The balance sheets also would give an idea of their independent existence. Secondly, the petitioners have produced statements providing a comparative date of wires and cables sold directly by them sold through M/s. Delton Sales (P) Ltd. The petitioner urged that the higher prices charged by M/s. Delton Sales (P) Ltd. are explained by the selling expenses incurred by Delton Sales (P) Ltd. Therefore 10 discount by the petitioner to M/s. Delton Sales (P) Ltd. is genuine. 3. Govt. observe that the comparison between the direct sale through M/s. Delton Sales (P) Ltd. is not correct as the goods of different specifications were sold through those who channels. The contract price was lower than tile price offered to the distributors or sale agent. Govt. observes that 10 discount allowed to M/s. Delton Sales (P) Ltd. is not excessive consequential benefit granted to the petitioners.
-
1977 (11) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ctions it will clearly appear that dividend has to be computed as income from other sources separately from income from business or profession. In computing such income expenditure not in the nature of capital expenditure but laid out or spent wholly or exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income has to be ascertained and apportioned. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Ltd. relied on by the Tribunal has, in our opinion, very little relevance in the facts of the instant case. In the case before the Supreme Court there was no question of computing income under different heads. The income was computed under a single head but a part of the income was tax-free. There the revenue sought to apportion expenditure against tax-free income which was held to be erroneous. For the reasons stated above we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1977 (11) TMI 61 - PATNA HIGH COURT
House Property, Income Tax Proceedings, Res Judicata Not Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... thorities and Tribunals functioning under the Act. True it is that a finding as to what was the income of the assessee in an earlier assessment year assessable to tax cannot operate as res judicata as to what is his income in a subsequent year assessable to tax, but there should be some provision laying down that a finding in a previous year that some property does or does not belong to the assessee, and, therefore, its income is liable or not liable to be taxed as his income or findings on similar other matters should operate as res judicata in assessment proceedings for subsequent years unless it is established that some change has taken place in the circumstances prevailing earlier or that the finding was obtained by unfair means, such as practising fraud, etc. UDAY SINHA J.--I agree with, my Lord, the Chief Justice. I have, however, my reservations about the desirability of the application of the principles of res judicata to taxation cases as suggested by S. P. Singh J.
-
1977 (11) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... rded as a receipt arising from business though it may be said in a sense to be a receipt in the course of business. We hold that the Tribunal had correctly held that the sum of Rs. 13,455.75 received by the assessee was not a receipt arising from its business, within the meaning of section 10(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We are inclined to rest our decision on the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, namely, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Canara Bank Ltd. 1967 63 ITR 328. Accordingly, we hold that the excess amount arising out of the devaluation of the Indian rupee was capital receipt but not revenue profit for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, and answer the question referred to us against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 500. A copy of our opinion signed by the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with the seal of this court.
-
1977 (11) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Restriction On Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... on all the relevant factors. We are, therefore, unable to answer the questions that have been referred to us and in view of the fact that the Tribunal has not considered these matters before passing the orders in the cases, we consider that we should adopt the principle that was adopted by the Supreme Court, in dealing with references under the Income-tax Act, in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. 1968 68 ITR 200 and Commissioner of Income- tax v. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. 1970 78 ITR 474. Accordingly we direct the Tribunal to take back G.T.A. No. 83 (MDS)/73-74 and G.T.A. No. 25/ 74-75 on its file and deal with them afresh after issuing notice to the parties concerned and dispose of those appeals in the light of what is stated in this judgment. We order these two references in the above terms. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. The costs hereafter incurred will be provided for by the Tribunal.
............
|
