|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 375 Records
-
1995 (3) TMI 155 - ITAT DELHI
Additional Evidence, Assessing Officer, Household Expenses, Rental Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... meet household expenses. After being satisfied that there was no case for sustaining additions, the learned CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee. It is not the case of the Revenue that complicated and complex questions were raised before the CIT(A) and, therefore, it was necessary for the CIT(A) to order a remand and ask the Assessing Officer to re-examine and deal with the matter afresh. It was a small and simple case which could be and was reasonably clarified before the CIT(A). The Revenue has not shown any material in their possession to state that the conclusion arrived by the CIT(A) was erroneous and if opportunity were allowed to them, a different conclusion would have followed. Having regard to all the circumstances narrated above, we are of the view that discretion was properly exercised by the learned CIT(A) and there is no scope to interfere with his order. We confirm the same and dismiss this appeal of the revenue. 9. In the result, revenue s appeal is dismissed
-
1995 (3) TMI 154 - ITAT DELHI
Capital Gains, Capital Loss, Deduction In Respect, Market Value, Profit On Sale, Right Shares
-
1995 (3) TMI 153 - ITAT DELHI
Assessing Officer, Audit Objection, High Court, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... . The contention that this principle does not apply to the Assessing Officer is not convincing and in any case of no consequence, as it is not disputed that the appellate authorities are bound to follow the above principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Once that principle is adopted assuming that the view regarding the taxability of the receipts expressed by CIT is a possible view, the matter ultimately has got to be decided in favour of the assessee on the basis of the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products of India In the light of the above discussion and our findings, we are satisfied that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 does not hold water when tested in the light of the judicial principles. The said order is accordingly cancelled and the original order of the Assessing Officer made under section 143(3) is restored. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
-
1995 (3) TMI 152 - ITAT DELHI
Arbitration Award, Assessing Officer, Capital Gains Tax, Certain Assets, Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... ion 45 cannot be invoked. We may point out that provisions of section 52 are also inapplicable to the facts of the case as there is no allegation that the transfer was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of liability of the assessee u/s 54. Moreover, for the purposes of invoking of section 52, the fair market value of the capital assets has got to be compared with reference to the full value of the consideration declared by the assessee in respect of the transfer of capital asset. Moreover, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO 1981 131 ITR 597 have held that section 52 is inapplicable in the case of bona fide transfers . 11. We, therefore, hold that assessee is not liable to tax u/s 45 in respect of the transfer of assets to SIPL effected by way of exchange of the assets. 12. As a result of our above findings, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and in the circumstances of the case, appeal of the revenue is dismissed
-
1995 (3) TMI 151 - ITAT DELHI
Assessing Officer, Capital Work In Progress, Fixed Assets, Income From Other Sources, Interest Income, Previous Year, Setting Up
-
1995 (3) TMI 150 - ITAT DELHI
Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... entire satisfaction of the Bank and on these facts and under these circumstances, it is not acceptable that the Architects had any say in so far as the bills of the assessee on the Bank for Rs. 15,78,434 was concerned. In simple terms the assessee-contractor had made a claim for Rs. 15,78,434 and the Bank had accepted the same in March 1990. Therefore, having considered the matter in depth we are clearly of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Revenue was justified in taxing the amount as assessee s income for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court and High Courts, relied upon by the learned AR for the assessee, the same being either not relevant or distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the case. We accordingly uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 7. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed
-
1995 (3) TMI 149 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... nsideration paid is said to have exceeded the alleged market value as estimated by the Departmental valuer, originally at Rs. 3,14,600 and subsequently at Rs. 3,84,844. There is no inadequacy of consideration. Further, an ordinary instance of purchase of property for a valid consideration cannot be brought within the purview of the definition of gift merely because the purchaser has paid a higher price. It has not been shown that the purchaser could have obtained the same property in the same locality at a lesser cost. It is not the case of the Revenue that the seller in this case is either related to the assessee or closely connected with the assessee. Nothing in law prevented the assessee from striking a bargain with the seller at a price which may look foolish in the eyes of others. Looked at from any angle, we hold that the transaction does not attract any of the provisions of GT Act. We, therefore, cancel the gift-tax assessment. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 148 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... payment. The assessee makes the payment only to get rid of the botheration of attending to various functions in connection with its business and in this case in connection with the exports. Ofcourse, in a case falling under s. 40A(2)(v) the reasonableness of such payment can be enquired into. No comparable case has been cited to show that the payment made to Shah Enterprises was excessive. There is no yardstick to show whether the profit of 10 paise or 25 paise is either reasonable or unreasonable. In the circumstances, we feel that the enhancement made by the CIT(A) is totally uncalled for and the same is deleted. 9. As for the disallowance of 25 paise per kg. originally made by the AO, we feel that such disallowance is called for, in view of the wide disparity between the payment received and the expenses incurred. Hence, the disallowance as originally made by the AO 25 paise per kg. of tea exported is sustained. 10. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 147 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... g after the prescribed time limit of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the levy of penalty in the course of the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained. On the basis of the statement made at the Bar, we have further directed the AO to complete the assessments on the basis of the amnesty returns furnished by the assessee in respect of these two years and have further directed that the assessee should be given the benefit under the amnesty scheme. As a result of the findings in the quantum appeals, we delete the levy of penalty for both the years. 9. Sri Mahadevan was complaining of lack of natural justice before the order of penalty was approved by the Dy. CIT(Asst.). Since we have cancelled the penalty on other grounds, we find it not necessary to deal with this grievance of the assessee as voiced by his Chartered Accountant. 10. In the result, the quantum appeals are partly allowed, and the appeals against levy of penalty are allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 146 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... sion on the treatment of broken period interest upheld the determination of the loss as computed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is in second appeal. 12. We have heard rival submissions. In the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (1991) 94 CTR (SC) 216 (1991) 187 ITR 541 (SC) the apex Court held that Whether the assessee purchases securities at a price determined with reference to their actual value as well as the interest accrued thereon till the date of purchase, the entire price paid for them would be in the nature of a capital outlay and no part of it can be set off as an expenditure against the income by way of interest received on the securities. Accordingly we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee and also in the quantification of the capital loss as determined by the Assessing Officer. 13. In the result, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1989-90 is partly allowed and the appeal for the asst. yr. 1990-91 is dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 145 - ITAT COCHIN
Advance Tax, Assessing Officer, Business Expenditure, Interest Payable By Assessee, Previous Year, Provident Fund, Total Income
-
1995 (3) TMI 144 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Export Business, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... ion applies, the amount which bears to the profits of the business (as computed under the head Profits and gains of business or profession ) the same proportion as the export turnover bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee. This particular sub-section was, perhaps, not noticed by the Tribunal when the case was decided for the assessment year 1983-84. In this view of the matter, we are not persuaded by the contentions of Shri Abraham. Since the facts in the present case are similar to those obtaining for the assessment year 1985-86, we give similar directions with the further proviso that in case the assessee is found eligible to have section 80HHC benefit in respect of some of its exports or all of its exports, the amount of deduction must be computed on the basis of the profits as defined in sub-section (3) of section 80HHC. Thus, the revenue s appeals for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes
-
1995 (3) TMI 143 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Business Expenditure, Business Premises, Capital Expenditure, Enduring Benefit, Expenditure Incurred, Setting Up
-
1995 (3) TMI 142 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... siness. 9. In view of the above decisions, the sole decision of the Appellate Tribunal relied on by the learned Counsel for the assessee cannot be said to hold the field today. For allowing relief under section 32A, not only has the undertaking to be an industrial undertaking but that industrial undertaking has also to manufacture or produce any article or thing. As discussed above, the various High Courts have held that the hotel does not produce any article or thing and hotel business is only a trading business. We, therefore, hold that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance on the plant and machinery used in the hotel business and since the restaurant was a part and parcel of the hotel, the machinery used therein could not be separated for purposes of allowance under section 32A. So both the main and the alternative submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee are rejected. 10. to 14. These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues.
-
1995 (3) TMI 141 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Business Loss, Business Premises ... ... ... ... ..... s, we have decided the issue in that light and held above that one of the loss of Rs. 3,02, 101 was a business loss. The question of exact quantification of loss has not been gone into by the Assessing Officer. During the course of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,44,586 was received from United India Insurance Company in full and final settlement of the assessee s claim in November 1990. It was also submitted that no such income was shown by the assessee in assessment year 1991-92 or in any other year. We were also given to understand that the claim from National Insurance Co. had still not been settled. All these matters are connected with the quantification of loss. Since the revenue authorities have not gone into this aspect of the matter, we restore the issue of quantification of loss in the light of our observations made above to the Assessing Officer for determination. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 140 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Appellate Authority, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... roduction of the controlled variety of cloth was an allowable deduction. 10. We have looked to the facts of the case and we are of the view that the first appellate authority has taken a correct view in the matter inasmuch as the forfeiture of the security as well as payment of compensation were incidental to the assessee s business and such deductions were to be allowed as expenditure in the normal course of business. The assessee could not complete the work in time and that resulted in the forfeiture of the security. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the assessee did commit any infringement of any provision of law. The assessee in the best interest of the business left the work because completing the work would have resulted in greater loss than the forfeiture of the security. We are, therefore, of the view that the deduction had rightly been allowed. Ground No. 1, therefore, fails. 11. to 16. These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.
-
1995 (3) TMI 139 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Deemed Gift, Gift Tax Act, Own Capital, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... that on the reconstitution of the firm, none of the three appellants transferred any part of the capital to any of the new partners including the minors and, therefore, there was no element of gift at all. Whatever excess capital was available, that was withdrawn by all the three appellants and, in the new firm, proportionate capital was introduced. The copies of accounts in the case of each of the three appellants made it clear that suitable variation was made in the capital contribution. Similarly, all the new partners, including the minors, brought in their capital on admission. Therefore, there is found to be adequate consideration when certain shares were allotted to the partners. There is no element of gift at all when the shares of the three appellants were reduced. The relinquishment or the reduction cannot be specifically assigned in favour of the new partners or the minors. 13. In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed and the levy of gift tax is cancelled.
-
1995 (3) TMI 138 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Assessing Officer ... ... ... ... ..... thorities have not controverted the claim of the assessee on merit. They have also not pointed out any flaw or defect in the certificate or in the claim of deduction under section 80HHC. In the absence of any reason and material against the claim of the assessee, we hold that the deduction under section 80HHC can be allowed and is allowable on merit as well. 23. After deciding all important and relevant issues involved in this case, we come to the conclusion and hold that the revenue authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee under section 80HHC. Their orders are, therefore, vacated and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction under section 80HHC. 24. These grounds of appeal, therefore, succeed. 25. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 relate to charging of interest under section 234B and additional tax under section 143(1A) and are consequential in nature and Ground No. 5 is general in nature. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
-
1995 (3) TMI 137 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Export Business, The Constitution ... ... ... ... ..... h 10 of the order. In that order, though we had referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Tata Tea Limited and Mcleod Russel (India) Limited, we did not refer to the earlier two judgments of the Supreme Court, which we have referred to in the present order. Even though we cited the Tata Tea Limited s decision of the Supreme Court, the most relevant and clinching observations of the Supreme Court were not adverted to in our earlier order. However, that does not affect the ultimate decision of ours in that order. The final conclusion was that the deduction under section 80HHC cannot be computed with reference to the 60 per cent of the composite income which is exempt from the Income-tax Act as agricultural income. 9. For these reasons, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A). The assessee s contentions are rejected and the deduction of Rs. 3,94,377 granted by the income-tax Officer under section 80HHC is held correct. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1995 (3) TMI 136 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Inaccurate Particulars, Penalty For Concealment, Penalty Proceedings, Set Off, Tribunal's Order
............
|
