|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 208 - ITAT INDORE
Appeal and limitations ... ... ... ... ..... nd if the answer is in the affirmative, to give details of date of payment and the amount paid. Form No. 35 is the proforma for filing, appeal to the CIT(A) while Form No. 36 under rule 47(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, is the form of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. We, however find that in Form No. 36 there is no such column or in other words no such information regarding payment of tax due on the income returned has been sought for from the assessee as in Form No. 35 for filing appeal to the CIT(A). This also supports our conclusion on the issue. 6. We thus find no substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned. Senior Departmental Representative and we decide the issue raised in the preliminary objection in negative i.e. against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. In view of our finding on the aforesaid preliminary objection, the registry is directed to fix this appeal for hearing on merits on any convenient date in the month of February, 2002.
-
2001 (12) TMI 207 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Assessment, Prima Facie Adjustment ... ... ... ... ..... Deed filed in the present case did not contain any provision at all regarding payment of remuneration to the partners. What is totally missing in the Partnership Deed cannot be supplemented by the Assessing Officer by requiring the assessee to file a fresh Partnership Deed stipulating such a payment. The other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the assessee are also similarly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the add back of the remuneration to the partners of Rs. 36,000 claimed by the assessee, by way of prima facie adjustment made by the Assessing Officer while processing the return under section 143(1)(a) is in order, and the Deputy CIT(A) was not justified in setting aside the intimation under section 143(1)(a) sent in that behalf. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Deputy CIT(A), and restore the orders of the assessing officer. 11. In the result, Revenue s appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 206 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Income, Accrual Of ... ... ... ... ..... in the financial year 1992-93, presumably after the prescribed procedure had been followed. In respect of the amount of Rs.61,945, the said procedure was not followed and so it stands on a different footing. This is not a case where the income was simply not quantified though the parameters for quantification were available. There were no parameters at all laid down in the prescribed procedure for the quantification of the share of each of the participants in the fees. At any rate, no parameters have been brought to my notice. The only parameter available was the opinion of the head of the team, who was an interested party. This is not an objective criterion to go by and so I am of the view that till the objections of the participants are received and settled, no income accrued to the assessee, though he was the head of the team. For the foregoing reasons, I uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 205 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... rection given by the CIT(A) was to look into the objection and make proper adjustments as per s. 115J. We find nothing wrong in the directions and there is no scope of grievance by the Revenue on such directions. As such the order of the CIT(A) is upheld on this point also. 19. In the cross-objection in ground No. 1, the point has been raised that the learned CIT(A) while deleting the addition of Rs. 1,77,36,085 made by the AO on account of alleged ingenuine purchase erred in not considering the argument and submission of the assessee rsquo s counsel, that the purchases could not be disbelieved when the opening and closing, stock have been accepted by the AO. This cross-objection has already been disposed of in favour of the assessee. Cross-objection Nos. 2 to 7 are in support of the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) rsquo s order had already been upheld as above. 20. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection by the assessee is allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 204 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... dently. This factual aspect requires verification. Further, it is clarified that all the deductions under Chapter VI-A cannot exceed the gross total income computed in accordance with s. 80B(5). This is apparent from the express provision of s. 80A(2). In view of the above discussion, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside on this issue and the matter is restored to the file of AO, who shall readjudicate the issue after verifying the fact as to whether the steering unit and the axle unit are units functioning independently. The claim of the assessee would not be rejected merely on the ground that axle unit was established by way of expansion of the existing business. If it is found that both units were functioning independently then the claim of the assessee would be allowed without setting off the losses of the other unit. However, while allowing such deduction, he will take into consideration the provisions of s. 80A(2). 18. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT DELHI-E
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ment where both the companies are very much in existence and are maintaining their separate legal entities. Had the intention of the Legislature been not to treat the conversion of shares in any arrangement other than amalgamation, as is involved in the present appeal, a provision on the lines similar to section 47(vii) would have been incorporated. In the absence of such a provision, we find it difficult to accept the contention raised on behalf of the assessee in this regard and hold that the present case cannot be considered to be falling in section 47(vii). Resultantly we find that the case of the assessee is not covered in any of the clauses of section 47 and since the word transfer has been defined under section 2(47) in an inclusive manner, the assessee cannot escape his liability to tax for this transaction. In view of the legal and factual position discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 202 - ITAT DELHI-C
Penalty, Failure To Deduct Tax At Source, Jurisdiction Of, Non-resident Company ... ... ... ... ..... Even before hearing from the Revenue Secretary or from CBDT, the appellant company immediately made payment in August, 1996. The notices/ summons was issued in May, 1996 only. Therefore, it can be said that there was no mala fide intention of the company. The efforts of the company can be equated with bona fide or bona fide belief. Therefore keeping in view of these facts and circumstances, we hold that there was a reasonable cause for not depositing the tax on account of emoluments paid to expatriates, in time. Accordingly we order to delete the entire penalties levied under section 271C for all the years under appeal here before us. 63. As we have cancelled the penalty order on the issue of jurisdiction and on account of reasonable cause, therefore, we feel that the question of validity of notice or defective notice etc. need not to be decided at this point of time. Therefore, they are disposed of accordingly. 64. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 201 - ITAT DELHI-C
Deduction Of Tax At Source, Payment To Non-Residents ... ... ... ... ..... ely because certain entries are made in the books of account under mistaken view of law. As far as, second finding of CIT (A) as noted by us is concerned, it is not supported by any material or evidence and therefore, is vacated. 15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that agreement being void was unenforceable in law and consequently, no enforceable debt was created in favour of LME . As a result thereof, it is further held that no income accrued under the Act with reference to any royalty amount by virtue of section 5(2). Hence, assessee was under no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195. Therefore, the assessee could not be deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201(1). Consequently, no interest under section 201(1A) could be charged. Accordingly, both the orders of CIT (A) are set aside and the demand of tax under section 201(1) and interest levied under section 201(1A) are hereby deleted. 16. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 200 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-B
... ...
... ... ..... al as it thinks fit , without adding any gloss of their own to the expression. In CIT vs. Nelliappan (1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC) as well as the Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills case, the Supreme Court had even used phrases which are reminiscent of the language which English Judges have used while describing a tax appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal is not precluded from adjusting the tax liabilities of the assessee in the light of its findings merely because the findings are inconsistent with the case pleaded by the assessee. English Judges have regarded a tax appeal, not as a lis, but as a process of further adjustment of taxpayer liability vide Lord Hewart in Rex vs. Special Commissioner (1935) 20 Tax Cases 381 (CA) Greer L.J. in IRC vs. Sneath (1932) 17 Tax Cases 149 (CA) Rome, LJ in the same case, IRC vs. Sneath and Lord Wright M.R. in Rex vs. Special Commissioner. 5. In view of the above discussions, we allow the assessee to raise the additional grounds of appeal.
-
2001 (12) TMI 199 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A
... ...
... ... ..... is rejected. 23. Now, we shall take up ground No. 3 of the Revenue in appeal No. 1443/Chd/1994 for the asst. yr. 1991-92. 24. At the outset of the proceedings before us, learned Authorised Representative for the assessee placed on record a photocopy of the decision of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in ITA No. 1179/Chd/1994 asst. yr. 1988-89 decided on 22nd June, 2001, and ITA Nos. 96 and 97/Chd/1995 asst. yr. 1989-90 and 1990-91 decided on 19th April, 2001, and contended that after this decision, the issue involved in ground No. 3 stands decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, so, this ground of appeal is liable to be rejected. 25. Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was fair enough to concede on this point. 26. In this view of the matter, ground No. 3 of the Revenue s appeal in ITA No. 1443/Chd/1994 asst. yr. 1991-92 is rejected and the order of the CIT(A) is upheld. 27. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 198 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... aforesaid assessment years have not been disputed by the Revenue. Taking into account these facts, we are of the considered opinion that there does not seem to be any conscious disregard on the part of the assessees to delay the filing of the returns out for the remaining period for the above-mentioned assessment years. 5. Due to the reasons explained by the assessees before the lower authorities, it could be held that the assessees were prevented by a reasonable cause in filing the returns of income late. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the cases, we hold that the Dy. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the penalty imposed by the AO for the above-mentioned assessment years in both the cases, Accordingly, we set aside the orders of Dy. CIT(A) and delete the penalties sustained for all the above-mentioned assessment years. Accordingly, these grounds of all the appeals are allowed. 6. In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees, are allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 197 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Revision Of Orders prejudicial to interest of revenue ... ... ... ... ..... before the Tribunal. I can only observe that the Assessing Officer in dropping the penalties and the CIT(Appeals) in the subsequent proceedings in cancelling the penalties have gone in the same direction whereas the Commissioner of Income-tax by passing an order under section 263 has opined otherwise. This could also be termed as a case where there has been a change of opinion on the part of the Commissioner of Income-tax acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when he has proceeded to cancel the orders passed by the Assessing Officer dropping the penalties and waiving the interest by due application of mind and considering the facts of the case. 4. In the final analysis, I approve of the action of the learned Accountant Member in cancelling the consolidated order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 for the assessment years under consideration. Let the matters be listed before the division bench for passing an order in conformity with the majority opinion.
-
2001 (12) TMI 196 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Double Taxation Agreement With France, Deduction Of Tax At Source, Payment To Non-Residents ... ... ... ... ..... sale of property . It is also not in dispute that in terms of Indo UK DTAA, NTM did not have any permanent establishment in India to which such income can be attributed. In this view of the matter, and in view of the specific exclusion of fees for such services from the scope of fees for technical services by the virtue of Article 13(5)(a) of Indo UK DTAA, we hold that the income arising to NTM from rendering these technical services will not taxable in India. Accordingly, in our considered view and relying upon the deliberations in paragraphs 19 and 20 above, which are broadly applicable in this case also, the assessee tax deductor was not under any obligation to deduct tax at source from related remittances to NTM. For the reasons set out above, we support the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 26. In the result, ITA Nos. 973/Cal./98 is also dismissed. 7. To sum up, all the three appeals, filed by the Revenue, are dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 195 - ITAT BOMBAY
Assets, Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... subsidiary and incidental contentions were raised by both the sides, but we do not consider it necessary to deal with them because the main thrust of Mr. Dave, the learned CIT (DR) was that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vinay Bubna s case and Stock Exchange Ahmedabad s case were rendered in a different context and cannot therefore be applied to the interpretation of section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, which contention has not been accepted by us for the reason given earlier. 33. We accordingly hold, consistent with the earlier orders of the Tribunal, that the Stock Exchange card of the BSE is not an asset under section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act. 34. We wish to place on record the very able assistance rendered by Mr. Dave, the learned CIT(DR) on behalf of the Department and the learned counsel who appeared for the assessees before us, led by Mr. V.H. Patil. 5. The appeals filed by the department on this issue are dismissed and those filed by the assessees are allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 194 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... th realised a sum of Rs. 48,50,000 whereas according to the Department it is Rs. 60,70,400 on behalf of the turnkey contractor M/s S.G. Enterprises and not on behalf of the society. Be it what it may, this said sum so realised belongs to the turnkey contractor M/s S.G.R. Enterprises and not to the society. The entitlement to the contractor quota is also embodied in the agreement. The money was not found with the society but was found with Mr. Manjunath, who was the director of the society, who did the work on behalf of the contractor and is accountable to the contractor. Thus, there is no case for making any addition as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee-society. 33. Therefore, the additions and disallowances made in the block assessment cannot be treated as undisclosed income and we are of the considered view, they are required to be deleted. 34. In view of the above, in the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed to the extent mentioned above.
-
2001 (12) TMI 193 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... be further taken note of for the purpose of computing deduction under s. 80HHC. The proviso is thus essentially intended to include the part of profits attributable to export incentive like excise duty draw back as export profits for the purpose of relief under s. 80HHC. This proviso and the amended provisions of s. 80HHC w.e.f. 1st April, 1992, have not been considered by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. probably because the assessment year before their Lordships pertained to assessment year prior to 1st April, 1992. The Bombay High Court decision is, therefore, in any case distinguishable and would not apply for asst. yr. 1996-97 under reference. The Bombay High Court decision, therefore, would not support the case of the assessee. 9.15. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the sales-tax and excise duty form part of the total turnover for the purpose of s. 80HHC. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. 10. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 192 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... nd the AO is directed to levy interest under s. 215 on the finally determined reassessed income but only upto the date of regular assessment. 12. We may clarify that we have not gone into the question as to whether the interest under s. 215 could be increased from zero when as a result of reassessment under s. 147 the income has been enhanced and interest under s. 215(3) becomes chargeable. This is so because such issued is a debatable issue and cannot be considered in proceedings under s. 154. The CIT(A) in the first ground having upheld the validity of the levy of interest in reassessment proceedings and the assessee not having appealed against that order, that issue could no longer be considered in proceedings under s. 154. However, the assessee is entitled to the relief as per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. and Ors. read with modified s. 215(3). We have directed accordingly. 13. The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 191 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Discretionary Trust ... ... ... ... ..... le to be included in the assessment of the assessee. Thus the four departmental appeals are allowed. 11. Regarding cross-objection filed by the assessee for assessment year 1991-92, ground No. 1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. 12. Regarding ground No. 2 it relates to allowance on account of rebate under section 88. The interest income has been held to be assessable in the hands of the assessee the rebate under section 88 is therefore liable to be allowed in accordance with law. We hold accordingly. 13. Regarding ground No. 3 we find that for assessment year 1991-92 interest paid to the beneficiaries including the fixed deposit has been held to be allowable. Therefore interest on the fixed deposit of the beneficiaries is liable to be assessed in their personal assessments. This ground is therefore dismissed. 14. Ground No. 4 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. 15. In the result, departmental appeals are allowed and cross-objection is partly allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 190 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Deemed Dividend ... ... ... ... ..... r Lordships of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT 1991 191 ITR 634 held that ITNS 150 is part of the assessment order and, therefore, it will be necessary to record a finding by the revenue authorities as to whether there is any specific order of the Assessing Officer for charging interest under section 234B/234C before the issue of demand notice. The direction of the Assessing Officer in the body of the order charge interest as applicable as per the aforementioned decision, is not sufficient. Mention of the specific section has been held to be necessary for the levy of interest under section 234B/234C. We, accordingly, restore this issue for both the assessment years to CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law after verification of facts and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is, accordingly, partly allowed. 44. To sum up, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 189 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... The interest on deferred payments received from the customers is a part of sale price as has been held by the Hon ble apex Court in the judgment relied upon the learned counsel. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the view taken by the CIT(A) in relation to these three items of interest income is valid and justified. However, deduction granted under s. 80-I/80-IA on interest received on electric power connection deposits and telephone connection deposits by the CIT(A), details of which have been given in a(ii) of the chart reproduced, hereinbefore, is held to be wrong in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. The relief so granted by the CIT(A) to this extent is, therefore, directed to be withdrawn. 10. In the result, the assessee s appeals for asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 are partly allowed and the assessee s appeal for asst. yr. 1992-93 is dismissed. All the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed.
............
|
