Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 228 Records
-
1983 (12) TMI 108 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ... ... ... ..... rs could not be filed in time on account of the fact that partner Om Prakash forgot to deliver them in the ITO. It was only on the date when the case for the asst. yr. 1977-78 had been fixed for hearing by the ITO that the partner realised that he had forgotten to file the return of income and Form No. 12. Since it appears to be a case where the declaration in Form No. 12 could not be filed on account of an act of forgetfulness on the part of one of the partners and since it appears to us that the firm had every intention of filing the papers in time which had been duly prepared on the 15th June, 1978, we would consider it to be a case where sufficient cause existed and where the ITO should not have denied the benefit of registration to a firm which was otherwise genuine. In the circumstances, we would reverse the orders passed by two lower authorities and direct the ITO to continue the benefit of registration in the asst. yr. 1978-79. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 107 - ITAT DELHI-B
A Firm, Capital Asset, Dissolution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... tled to claim that to the extent of such ornaments held by the partnership firm and which came into his hands, the sale would result in long-term capital gains. 10. So far as which are the ornaments held by the partnership firm for more than 36 months or to put it differently, whether in determining the period for the purpose of section 2(42A), the matter requires scrutiny by the ITO, we have already mentioned about this earlier. The ITO is directed to specifically find out as to what were the ornaments held by the partnership and for which period and after considering the date of sale of such ornaments, he will determine whether the period of 36 months is over or not. In case he finds that the period exceeds 36 months, the capital gains to that extent shall be treated as long-term capital gains and in respect of others, it should be short-term capital gains. For this limited purpose, the matter is remitted back to the ITO. 11. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 106 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ... ... ... ..... ing the affidavit. The creditor, however, refused to appear before the ITO on the request of the assessee. The ITO, however did not issue any summons to the creditor to prove the genuineness of the deposit. In such a case, we are of the view that the deposit in this case was not conclusively proved to be that of the assessee nor the creditors. As suggested by the ld. counsel of the assessee the deposit might have been actually made by Shri Rajendra Prasad, but failed to appear before the ITO for fear of getting the amount assessed in his own hands as undisclosed income. However, since affidavit of the creditor has been field it is for the ITO to make enquiries on his own and come to a conclusive finding to the genuineness of the deposit. As the same has not been done, the ITO is not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the assessee. The addition is accordingly deleted. The other ground of the appeal has not been presented. 10. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 105 - ITAT COCHIN
Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... provide the chemicals but the owners of the raw material may also provide the chemicals. It is not material as to who provides the chemicals, if the chemicals have to be added, according to specifications to obtain preserved latex. 13. We hold that no production or manufacture is involved in subjecting the natural rubber latex to the centrifugal operation for obtaining preserved latex and, therefore, the assessee would not be eligible for the investment allowance under section 32A and the deduction under section 80HH. 14. Submissions have been made elaborately on the other question whether the assessee should be the owner of the raw material which is subjected to the process in the centrifugal machinery in order to be eligible for the two allowances. Since we have held that no production or manufacture is involved in this process, it is unnecessary to consider this other question for the disposal of these appeals. 15. In the result, the two appeals by the revenue are allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 104 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessment Year, Net Wealth, Previous Year, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... cording to the law as on the first day of the assessment year, that is, a day necessarily subsequent to the last day of the previous year or the valuation date. It would follow that the determination of the net wealth and for that purpose the determination of the liability will have to be made on the state of affairs factually on the valuation date or the last day of the previous year, but in accordance with the law as on the first day of the assessment year. We would, in the light of this hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in holding that the proviso to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 5 could not apply to the determination of the net wealth of the assessee for this assessment year. The proviso which has come into force on 1-4-1975 will determine the net wealth on the valuation date even though the valuation date is prior to the first day of the assessment year, We, therefore, restore the order of the WTO on this question. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessment Year, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... t has interpreted the words which is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee as appearing in section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, corresponding to section 33 of the 1961 Act. These words also find a place in section 33. The Gujarat High Court has held that these words are used because it is in respect of the business carried on by the assessee that the development rebate can be claimed. On the facts as narrated by us earlier, it cannot be said that the machinery had not been wholly used for the purposes of the business of the assessee, who is a manufacturer of coir products. The ITO has come to the finding that the manufacturing units at Alleppey and Nagercoil constitute one business and the machinery in the new unit has been used during the previous year for the production of three tons of coir products. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 9. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 102 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ... ... ... ..... ct that different portions of building were built in different years is not relevant in determining whether the different portions constitute one house. The fact that different portions bear different municipal numbers is relevant but not conclusive. Here under peculiar circumstances of the case that the two portions of the property were acquired differently at two stages by the assessee and other co-owners, being a property having common Courtyard and common walls and unity of structure, simply because came to acquire two municipal numbers and the two openings being in Kucha Nos. 1 and 2 would not become two residential houses for the purposes of exemption. The assessee, therefore, on the basis of the facts of the instant case is entitled to exemption and his claim is ordered to be allowed under s. 5(1)(iv). Perusal of the blue prints show that it is one and the same property. 7. Since we have reversed the finding of the AAC, in the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 101 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Hindu Undivided Family, Assessment After Partition ... ... ... ... ..... the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole. In the instant case when all the facts narrated above are taken into consideration, we find it a clear case of partition and the assessee s claim is ordered to be accepted under section 171. Similarly, statements of Harbans Lal, Rajbans Lal and Chander Shekhar cannot be read question-wise, the same are to be read as a whole and by reading of the same as a whole, we do not find anything damaging to the claim of the assessee. Merely because even after the said deed was registered, the assessee offered its rental income in the status of HUF till 1973-74 or one of the co-partners Harbans Lal did not show his share of rental income in the status of his own HUF, cannot be fatal to the assessee s claim. Mutation on revenue record at a late stage, does not go against the assessee, when registered deed of 16-12-1969 is there. 7. Since the action of the AAC is reversed, in the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 100 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Exemption, Residential House ... ... ... ... ..... at different portions of the building were built in different years is not relevant in determining whether the different portions constitute one house. The fact that different portions bear different municipal numbers is relevant but not conclusive. Here under peculiar circumstances of the case that the two portions of the property were acquired differently at two stages by the assessee and other co-owners, being a property having common courtyard and common walls and unity of structure, simply because it came to acquire two municipal numbers and the two openings being in kucha Nos. 1 and 2 would not two residential houses for the purposes of exemption. The assessee, therefore, on the basis of the facts of the instant case, is entitled to exemption and his claim is ordered to be allowed under section 5(1)(iv). Perusal of the blue prints show that it is one and the same property. 7. Since we have reversed the finding of the AAC, in the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 99 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Reassessment, Non Disclosure Of Primary Facts ... ... ... ... ..... use of Lords or of the Privy Council. But the authority cited by the revenue is with regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court read with article 141 of the Constitution. This in our opinion cannot have application in the manner required by the revenue as it would create innumerable practical difficulties in view of the precedents that are followed by the Tribunal and the way the Tribunal is bound by the decisions of the High Court under the jurisdiction of which it is functioning. 25. We have a well settled proposition of law given by the highest Court of law that if there are two reasonable views possible, the one that favours the subject should be adopted. From the discussion that precedes it becomes clear that the view that we have adopted is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Hence, on facts as well as on law, we find that the reassessment proceedings were without any basis. These are, therefore, cancelled. 26. Appeal allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 98 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
A Partner, Banking Company, Debt Owed, His Net Wealth, Time Barred Debt ... ... ... ... ..... , under section 4(1)(b) of the Act, the net wealth of the firm must be computed, and in so computing the net wealth of the firm, the firm is entitled to deduction of deposits in a scheduled bank to an extent of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 5(1)(xxvi) read with section 5(1A) of the Act. The partner will not thereafter be entitled to exemption in regard to his share of the bank deposits held by the firm. It is, however, open to the partner to claim a separate deduction in respect of deposits held by the partner individually other than by way of a share in the firm. In this case as well the cases of Purushothamdas Gocooldas and Addanki Narayanappa were considered. With the above cases in favour of the assessee, on the one hand, and reading of sections 7(1), 4(1)(b) and rule 2, it convinces us to accept the contention of the assessee. The CO of the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 8. In the result, the revenue s appeals are dismissed and the assessee s cross-objections are allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 97 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
... ... ... ... ..... uted upto 27th June, 1970. The AAC of WT has not given a finding that there was no cause for delayed filing of the return. In the case Ram Niranjan Sharma it was the case of the assessee that the return was the filed late under the bona fide belief that the assessee was not required to file the return as the wealth was below the taxable limit. But the AAC of WT has not dealt with the point before observing that the penalty is dismissed. It would be seen that the wealth of the assessees was initially in marginal case and for subsequent assessment year, the value of the assets had gone up on account of valuation determined by the Departmental valuer. Having regard to all these circumstances of the cases, we are of opinion that the orders of the AAC of WT cannot be sustained. On the facts of the cases as well as we are of opinion that the present penalty was not warranted. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are cancelled. 9. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 96 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Deduction Of Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... does not spell out as to what customary bonus is. It starts with the presumption that customary bonus has been paid and then authorises its adjustment against bonus payable under the Act. Therefore, even for the purpose of section 17, it has to be established by independent evidence that customary bonus was paid in a given case. In the present case, as we have noted above, evidence has never been led by the assessee to prove the payment of customary bonus before the authorities below. In fact, it was never the assessee s contention earlier. The assessee s plea earlier was that the bonus was paid in terms of the Payment of Bonus Act. The assessee now seeks to set up an altogether new plea, which is contrary to the stand earlier taken and to lead evidence in its support. It would, in our opinion, be wrong to grant to the assessee such permission. Accordingly, we refuse permission to the assessee to raise the alternative contention. 14. In the result, the appeal stands rejected.
-
1983 (12) TMI 95 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ... ... ... ..... ackground of the action of the assessee to write off the amount of Rs. 14,000. He added that the acknowledgement by the debtor of the amount as a loan was obtained only to ensure some evidence of the debt in the event of litigation to recover the amount. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in this case, vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances as they emerge from the relevant book entries and correspondence with the ITO copies of which are filed, and we have come to the conclusion that the amount in question formed part of the assessee s regular business transactions with the party concerned and it remained outstanding because of the failure of the party to honour the debt. We are also satisfied that there was justification for the assessee to write off the amount in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1979-80, as held by the CIT (Appeals). We, therefore, confirm his decision and dismiss the department s appeal. 6. The department s appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 94 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Assessment Year, Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Manufacture And Sale, Profits And Gains, Setting Up
-
1983 (12) TMI 93 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ... ... ... ..... deduction for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75. For the asst. yr. 1975-76 only, we find that the debts which were claimed as a deduction we of Rs. 7,00,233 while the value of the shares after allowing the statutory exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 amounted to only Rs. 6,83,853. This means that while no disallowance can be made out of the claim of debts, incurred in relation to or secured on shares for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75, the disallowance for the asst. yr. 1975-76 will be limited to the extent of the debt over the value of the shares which after allowing the statutory exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 were included in the assessee s net wealth. The disallowance for the asst. yr. 1975-76, therefore, works out to Rs. 7,00,233 less (Rs. 8,33,853 1,50,000) i.e. Rs. 16,380. 6. The other ground, common to the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75, against the addition made to the value of silver utensils was no pressed before us at the time of hearing. 7. The appeal are partly allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 92 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Assessment, Addition To Income ... ... ... ... ..... Rs. 28,480 invested in interest bearing deposits with other parties, material was furnished to the AAC for the first time which was not before the ITO in the course of the assessment proceedings is not disputed even by the assessee s learned counsel Shri Mulla. Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, clearly lays down that in the first place no additional evidence will be admitted unless reasons in writing are recorded for its admission and in any case the additional evidence produced will not be taken into consideration unless the ITO has been allowed a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence and make such submissions as the ITO considered necessary. The order of the AAC, therefore, on the issue of the addition of Rs. 28,480 was in violation of the provisions of rule 46A. On this issue, therefore, the order of the AAC is set aside and the matter is sent back to him for a decision afresh keeping in view our observations in this order. 16. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 91 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Net Wealth, Debt Owed ... ... ... ... ..... 974-75. For the assessment year 1975-76, only we find that the debts which were claimed as a deduction were of Rs. 7,00,233 while the value of the shares after allowing the statutory exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 amounted to only Rs. 6,83,853. This means that while no disallowance can be made out of the claim of debts, incurred in relation to or secured on shares for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the disallowance for the assessment year 1975-76 will be limited to the excess of the debts over the value of the shares which after allowing the statutory exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 were included in the assessee s net wealth. The disallowance for the assessment year 1975-76, therefore, works out to Rs. 7,00,233 less (Rs. 8,33,853---Rs. 1,50,000), i.e., Rs. 16,380. 6. The other ground, common to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, against the addition made to the value of silver utensils was not pressed before us at the time of hearing. 7. The appeals are partly allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 90 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Deductions, Interest On Securities, Dividends, Etc. ... ... ... ... ..... stituting an AOP under the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Balkrishna and other cases. It would be more accurate to treat the status of a trust as an individual. The learned counsel for the department has referred to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 164, especially the reference to association of persons therein to stress his point that whenever there are more than two trustees or two beneficiaries, the status should be an association of persons . He also pointed out drawing his support from the Supreme Court s decision in CWT v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam s Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust 1977 108 ITR 555 that section 164 by itself would impose a fresh charge. In my view, neither of these nor any provisions of the general law relating to trusts helps the department to fix the status of an assessee trust as an association of persons . 7. The assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80L. The departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 89 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Cash Basis, Partner In Firm, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... be determined only on the last day of the accounting year, any amount of drawing he might have made before that last date of the accounting year is no income at all. Indeed, such a type of maintaining of accounts is not the books of account contemplated to be maintained under section 145. 10. Shri Mathur s second line of argument is regarding those cases where the High Courts have held that an assessee-partner is entitled to certain further deductions in ascertaining the share of profit. Now, this line of authorities is easily reconciliable. The starting point in determining the income of a partner is the share allocated from the firm. From that figure, if the assessee is able to prove that he has incurred some further expenditure, he can certainly be allowed a deduction. But that does not change the position that the starting point for computing the income of a partner is the share allocated to him. 11. We see no merit in the assessee s submissions. The appeal is dismissed.
............
|