|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 301 Records
-
2002 (6) TMI 165 - ITAT DELHI-E
Income, Value Of Benefit Or Perquisite ... ... ... ... ..... attended by the wife. Neither the meeting nor the trip was certain when the resolution was passed. What would be the business conditions, exigencies requirements is also not disclosed is the resolution. What were the circumstances, business exigencies and business circumstances in which the assessee accompanied her husband is also missing. What benefit has accrued to the company on account of her visit abroad is also not disclosed. We feel that on all the trips special instances for the wives who accompany her husband are not only to be indicated but have to be justified which is also not the case here. The entire case record is silent. 13. We in these circumstances hold that the Commissioner ought not to have interfered in the finding of the Assessing Officer. In view of the discussion above, we feel that the CIT(A) committed an irregularity in interfering with the findings of the Assessing Officer and have, therefore, no hesitation but to accept the appeals of the revenue.
-
2002 (6) TMI 164 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... onsistently been held by the Tribunal that there was no scope for grossing up. Reference may be made of the following orders of Tribunal (a) ONGC as agent of Hyundai Heavy Indus. vs. Dy. CIT (ITA No. 1803/Del/1992, for asst. yr. 1988-89, dt. 24th Jan., 1997) (b) Dy. CIT vs. ONGC as agent of GGG, Jodhpur (ITA Nos. 1780 to 1789/Del/1991, asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1988-89, dt. 5th Dec., 1997) (c) ONGC as agent of Pol Services, Poland vs. Dy. CIT and Ors. (ITA Nos. 5789/Del/1190 and Ors., dt. 30th May, 1998) (d) ONGC as agent of Pol Service, Poland vs. Dy. CIT and Ors. (ITA Nos. 5789 to 5771/Del/1990, dt. 12th May, 1997) (e) McDermott International Inc. vs. Dy. CIT (ITA Nos. 3265/Del/1989 and 4148 to 4150/Del/1990, for asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87, dt. 21st Feb., 1994). 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid orders of Tribunal, I hold that there was no scope of grossing up in the case of assessees. Ground is allowed accordingly. 7. The result is that all the appeals stand allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 163 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-B
Profit And Gains From Industrial Undertakings ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee is an industrial undertaking or not in view of the reasons discussed above. In any case, the assessee has produced evidence in the form of an affidavit of a partner placed at page I of the paper book that the machines purchased from M/s Ajanta Electronics were new and first hand. This submission has not been controverted by the revenue. Thus the assessee fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 80-I and, therefore, was an industrial undertaking engaged in the business of manufacturing cycle pedals. 9. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of bicycle pedals and, therefore, was an industrial undertaking entitled to deduction under section 80-I. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of Rs. 29,616 under section 80-I. All the grounds of appeal are allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 162 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A
Business Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... se of assessee s business or to some business advantage obtained by giving such loan. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance of proportionate interest of Rs. 15,97,753 and Rs. 15,25,562 for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 respectively. We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed. 42. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the detailed reasons and the legal position discussed above, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance of interest. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the Assessing Officer. This ground of appeal is allowed. 43. In the result, appeals of both the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 161 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
... ...
... ... ..... which would imply that deductions allowable under the Act of 1961, in respect of income derived from business would be allowable and further allowance would be granted as set out in r. 8(2) and 40 per cent of the income so computed would be deemed to be income liable to levy of Central income-tax and the balance of the income would be liable to tax as agricultural income. 9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the orders of the learned CIT(A). Furthermore, from the orders of the learned CIT under s. 263, we do not find that he has alleged the orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. As per our considered view, while framing the order under s. 263, the learned CIT himself has to come to the conclusion that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, which is completely absent in the instant order given by the learned CIT. 10. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 160 - ITAT BOMBAY-J
Assessment, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... ding the purport of the amendment of section 154 of the I.T. Act vesting the Income-tax authorities to amend an intimation issued under section 143(1). In our view, this power of amendment would be confined to only rectification of the tax calculations or interest calculations. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the Assessing Officer had no power to withdraw the rebate claimed by the assessee by invoking the provision of section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the impugned order under section 154 is cancelled. Since the assessee succeeds on the main ground, the alternative ground is not dealt with. 8. The remaining grounds pertain to withdrawal of interest paid under section 244A of the Income-tax Act. Since the main ground has been decided in assessee s favour, this ground is only consequential and the Assessing Officer shall allow correct interest as admissible under section 244A of the Income-tax Act. 9. In the result, the Assessee s appeal stands allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 159 - ITAT BOMBAY-H
Appellate Tribunal, Penalty For Concealment of income ... ... ... ... ..... was approved. (1) CIT v. VS. Dempo and Co.(P.) Ltd. 1996 131 CTR (Bom.) 203, (2) Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (Rajkot) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1994 49 ITD 479 (3) Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. v. CIT 1992 193 ITR 694 (Bom.) 10. In the instant case the assessee had reason to declare Nil income for which a legitimate explanation was offered. Mereby non-believing an explanation may not lead to levy of penalty automatically unless the explanation is not found to be bona fide. It has been brought to our notice that on identical facts and circumstances in assessee s own case in ITA No. 4645/M/2001 for the assessment year 1992-93, Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 26-11-2001 has already deleted the concealment of penalty. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal and in view of the findings recorded we are of the view that under the circumstances no penalty for concealment should have been levied. We direct according. 11. In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 158 - ITAT BOMBAY-G
Method Of Accounting
... ... ... ... ..... e also. Similarly, in the case of Bank of Tokyo Ltd relied upon by the learned Counsel, the issue of notional profit has not been considered. Therefore, this case is also not relevant for deciding the issue in the present case. Similarly, the other cases relied upon by the learned Counsel have no relevance to the facts of the present case. 21. In view of the discussion in the aforesaid paragraphs, we confirm the addition of Rs. 1,90,07,000 being unrealised profits on unexecuted foreign exchange forward contracts. The findings of the learned CIT(A) are, therefore, upheld. In view of our specific findings, the alternative ground taken up by the assessee that unrealised profits of Rs. 1,90,07,000 and unrealised losses of Rs. 64,98,000 on unexecuted foreign exchange forward contracts as on 31-3-1991 be excluded while computing the total income of the assessee does not survive and the same is not considered. 22-29. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2002 (6) TMI 157 - ITAT BANGALORE-B
... ...
... ... ..... rquisite value as assessed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) in the order passed under section 201(1). In our opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is maintainable. Even otherwise, in our opinion, the issue of the appeal being maintainable or not is not open to question at the stage of the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 35. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no perquisite arises to an employee on the exercise of stock options. For this reason and other reasons elaborated upon by us, the provisions of section 201(1) are not attracted and the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default. 36. Since we have held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act, consequently the assessee is not liable for any interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. 37. In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 156 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Central Board of Direct Taxes - Instructions to subordinate authorities ... ... ... ... ..... ad issued Instruction No. 1903 dt. 28th Oct., 1992, by which the CBDT has revised the monetary relief to Rs. 25,000 for filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Keeping in view the CBDT. Instruction No. 1903, dt. 28th Oct., 1992, I am of the view that the Department ought not to have filed this appeal before the Tribunal after the date of issuance of Instruction No. 1903, dt. 28th Oct., 1992. While taking such a view, I am also fortified by the decision of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of ITO vs. Dharamvir and Ors. (2002) 253 ITR 1 (AT)(Chd). It is also relevant to point out that this Bench of the Tribunal has decided a similar issue against the Department vide order dt. 31st Dec., 2001 in ITA No. 33/Asr/2001 and others in ITO vs. Partap Builders and Ors. Respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal and without going into the merits of the case, I dismiss the appeal filed by the Department. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 155 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ied in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,500. 28.6 As regards another two additions of the Rs. 14,040 and Rs. 12,608 are concerned, the AO has not passed a speaking order and the learned CIT(A) was justified in restoring the issue back to his file for readjudication. We find no infirmity in the direction of the CIT(A). We, therefore, find no merit in this ground of appeal of the Department. 29. Ground Nos. 6 and 7 are general in nature so do not require any comments on our part. 30. The assessee has also raised an additional ground, which reads as under That the notice under s. 158BC issued by Asstt. CIT, Investigation Circie-I, Amritsar, dt. 5th March, 1998, is void ab initio and block assessment proceedings are illegal . Since we have disposed of the appeal on merits so we do not think it appropriate to discuss the issue raised by the assessee by way of additional ground. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 154 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... e taxing the amount of Rs. 12,12,438 under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961. In our view, the assessee has not obtained any cash or in any manner whatsoever any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. The assessee is also in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). In this appeal, i.e., ITA No. 359/Asr/1989, the assessee has taken the following grounds (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) legally erred in holding that the ITO was justified in framing an ex parte assessment. (2) That the appellant craves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing. It is pertinent to state that no arguments were advanced from either party and accordingly the same is also dismissed. 11. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 153 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
Income-Tax Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... rn of income under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1997-98, but since the Assessing Officer Joint CIT(Asstt.) who has made assessment under section 143(3) has no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee-society, the assessment is illegal for want of jurisdiction. We, therefore, cancel the assessment for the assessment year 1997-98 also as illegal for want of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer Joint CIT(Asstt.) , who completed the assessment. For the reasons mentioned above, we are not giving any finding whether the assessee-society is entitled to exemption under section 11 or section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the reasonings in above connected appeals which we have disposed of above. 63. The assessment for the assessment year 1997-98 is also quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary grounds. 64. In the result, appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1997-98 are allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 152 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... e reasonably necessary for performing the adjudicative functions. Applying the aforesaid principles, it clearly follows that it was obligatory on the part of the IT authority to effect service of notice of hearing on the assessee since the service could not be effected by post at the address given by the Revenue in the memorandum of appeal. The Tribunal was, therefore, well within its powers to direct the IT Department to effect service on the assessee particularly since the Department, as an executive organization is well equipped with the requisite staff strength of notice-server, IT Inspector, etc. for the purpose of serving various statutory notices on the taxpayer. Since the Revenue has shown scant regard for serving the notices of hearing on the respondent-assessee and has come up challenging the power of the Tribunal to direct the Revenue for service, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 151 - ITAT AGRA
Block Assessment in search case ... ... ... ... ..... ore, follows that what the assessee had already disclosed or would have disclosed is not to be treated as undisclosed income N.R. Paper and Board Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 1998 234 ITR 733 (Guj.). o p /o p 54. The income from speculation business has never been disclosed nor any entry in books of account, document or transaction was found during course of search except the assessee admitted in his statement recorded under sections 131 and 132(4) on st1 date Month 10 Day 26 Year 1995 26-10-1995 /st1 date that he did speculation business since st1 date Month 1 Day 4 Year 1995 1-4-1995 /st1 date . In that statement also neither question was raised nor reply given about the quantum of initial investment in speculation business. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no scope for estimation in undisclosed income. Hence, amount of Rs. 5,00,000 is deleted. Thus, this ground is also allowed. o p /o p 5 to 63. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues .
-
2002 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... that the restriction of 75 of CVD came only on 1-3-97 whereas the goods were received in the factory prior to 1-3-97 though they were installed after 1-3-97. 11.On perusal of the various case law cited before us, we note that for purpose of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q, the date of receipt of the goods in the factory is material date. Right to taking credit accrued from the date of receipt of the goods in the factory, we note further that there was no restriction as to quantum of duty that could be taken as Modvat credit prior to 1-3-97 and the goods were received in the factory prior to 1-3-97. Therefore, we hold that the respondent herein is entitled to Modvat credit at 100 of CVD right from the date of receipt of the goods. This view is further supported by Board s circular. 12.In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order to the above extent is, therefore, upheld and the appeal of Revenue is rejected.
-
2002 (6) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... les where the time limit of six months was prescribed for availing the credit, held that after the amendment, the credit can only be taken within six months from the date of issuance of duty-paying document. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the manufacturers on the ground that when the documents, which are issued prior to the amendment, restriction imposed by amending Rule 57G of the Rules, cannot be imposed. This view is upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 5. 7. In view of the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, a manufacturer cannot take the credit on the strength of original copy of invoice after issuance of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 19-1-95. Therefore, the impugned order, denying the credit is upheld. However, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
2002 (6) TMI 146 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Computer Training ... ... ... ... ..... (T) the Tribunal has held that training of customer s staffs, whether prior to the delivery of the computer or thereafter can be said to have no nexus with the manufacture or marketability of the computer and hence its value is not includible in the assessable value of the computers. The same view has been taken in the case of Auto Control Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 156 (T). 4. Following the ratio of the above decisions we hold that the training charges do not form part of the assessable value of the computers manufactured by the appellants herein, set aside this portion of the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (6) TMI 144 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Fabrics - Exemption - Special additional customs duty ... ... ... ... ..... duty for being used in the manufacture of exported product and has not been so used. The contention of the appellant is that the yarn which was received was duty paid. Reliance is placed on a letter dated 8-9-98 of the jurisdictional Superintendent which confirms this view. The Commissioner has not referred to this letter and holds that there is no evidence to show payment of duty on these goods. It is not possible for us to accept the Superintendent s letter as evidence of payment of duty on these goods. The letter is issued on 8-9-98, quite sometime after manufacture and export took place and it appears after the unit itself was closed. It does not indicate the basis for its conclusion. We are therefore of the view that the Commissioner was right in disregarding this letter. We would however like to give the assessee an opportunity to establish that the yarn was duty paid and remand the matter to the Commissioner for this purpose. 19.The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (6) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... chment was not attracted in this case hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard Shri Uma Shankar, learned DR and Shri Motibhai Patel, learned Consultant. We find that the issue relates to the applicability of the bar of unjust enrichment to refund of input credit. This issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 826 wherein it has been held that principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in view of proviso (c) to sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act which carves out an exception in respect of cases involving credit of duty. The Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of CCE, Bhubaneshwar v. Brooke Bond Lipton - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 228. Following the ratio of CCE, Kanpur v. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. cited supra we hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
............
|
