|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Anti-dumping duty on High Impact Polystyrene - and phrases - ‘Like article’ - Anti-dumping duty
-
2000 (10) TMI 204 - ITAT PUNE
Interest On Borrowed Capital, Tax Planning ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee would have been entitled to deduction of very negligible amount as money was utilised for the purpose of business only for 3 days, but by adopting the scheme, the assessee has tried to get huge deduction of Rs. 2,72,25,000 in order to avoid the tax liability of the year under consideration. Considering the facts that profits of the assessee-company had suddenly increased enormously and the lender had incurred heavy losses in the year under consideration, such scheme can be described as a colourable device since it helped the assessee in reducing the heavy burden of liability on one hand and without affecting much the lender on the other hand. In such situation, it is the duty of the Tax Authority/Tribunal to pierce the veil and ascertain the real transaction as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai. In view of this legal position, I concur with the finding of my learned Brother that colourable device was adopted by the assessee to avoid the tax.
-
2000 (10) TMI 203 - ITAT PUNE
Capital Gains, Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... market value of the plots of land under consideration. According to the CIT(A), it was not the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had received money over and above what is declared in the Conveyance Deed. The CIT(A) ultimately concluded as under As there is no other evidence to show that the appellant had received anything over and above what was declared in the transfer document,the Value shown in the transfer document has to be taken into consideration for determining the profit on sale of land. 16. We have heard both the parties. In our view, the decision of the CIT(A) is legally correct in view of the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chamkaur Singh v. State of Punjab Civil Writ Petition No. 7360 of 1988, dated 18-5-1990 and the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Gourang Naik v. State of Orissa AIR 1992 Orissa 232. Accordingly, we decline to interfere. 17. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed and the revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 202 - ITAT PUNE
Income Escaped Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... hed by the assessee in the course of original assessment proceedings were false or full particulars were not disclosed in such proceedings. No doubt, order of CIT(A) for assessment year 1987-88 could be the basis for re-opening the assessment but on that account, such re-opening could be made validly within a period of four years. But after the expiry of four years, the Assessing Officer was bound to record reasons in terms of the proviso to Section 147 with reference to relevant material coming into his possession. Admittedly, notices were issued much after the expiry of four years without recording reasons in terms of the proviso to section 147. Accordingly, we are unable to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer since the re-assessment proceedings were void-ab-initio on account of the period of limitation. Consequently, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the re-assessment proceedings are cancelled. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 196 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Form Of Appeal And Limitations ... ... ... ... ..... ve of the credit being given under the Explanation towards tax payable under section 140A and the interest payable under sections 234A and 234C, if the assessee has paid as per the section 140A challan the tax due on the returned income, that would be sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 249(4). In the present case, the assessee has paid tax of Rs. 14,112 on the returned income under section 140A, even though credit was not given for the full amount as tax, but partly adjusted towards interest under sections 234A and 234C. Still the assessee should be treated as having complied with the provisions of section 249(4) in regard to payment of tax on the admitted income. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore not correct in dismissing the appeal in limine. 7. We accordingly reverse the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct him to admit the appeal filed by the assessee and dispose it of in accordance with law. This appeal by the assessee is thus allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 194 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Deduction Of Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... that, within that period the credit entry in the account of the payee could have been made for the interest payable by the assessee. In such a case for the purpose of reckoning the delay, only the period after the time of two months allowed by Rule 30(1)(b) can be considered. We thus find force in the contention of the ld. counsel that, the Assessing Officer was not correct in charging interest for the delay for the period from 1st April of the respective year, We accept the plea that interest is chargeable only for the period after two months from the expiration of the month in which the date up to which the accounts of the business are made, i.e. in the present case from 1st June of the respective year. 9. We accordingly modify the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to charge interest under section 201(1A) for the delay for the period from 1st June of the respective year. In the result, these four appeals by the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 193 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Appeal And Limitations ... ... ... ... ..... um of Rs. 1,35,764 and thus remitted the entire tax due on the income returned by him. True, there was delay in making the remittance. Shri Sridhar, the learned counsel for the assessee has referred to the decision in the case of Kalipada Ghose. That is a case where the provisions of section 249(4) before the amendment were applicable. In that case the Orissa High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in directing the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal, as the assessee had subsequently paid the tax after filing the appeal. In the present case, considering the financial difficulty as good and sufficient reason, we find that the assessee could be granted exemption from the operation of sub-section (4). In the above circumstances, we direct the Commissioner (A) to admit the appeal and dispose it of on merits. We thus restore the appeal to the file of the Commissioner (A). 10. In the result, for statistical purpose, this appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 190 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... alone the concealed income, of the assessee. The addition has been made in this case merely on account of the assessee rsquo s failure to establish the identity of the supplier. Moreover, this addition has not been sustained separately in the appellate proceedings as mentioned hereinabove. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is nothing available on record which reasonably point out that the disputed amounts represent income of the assessee and the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. As such considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in entirety, and the well-settled position of law arising out of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, we are of the opinion that the disputed amount cannot be considered as assessee rsquo s concealed income so as to attract the provisions of s. 271(1)(c). Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty is cancelled and the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 188 - ITAT JODHPUR
Income From Letting Of Godowns ... ... ... ... ..... r the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible and (iii) in computing profits and gains of business or profession when an assessee is carrying on business in various ventures and some among them yield taxable income and the other do not, the question of allowability of the expenditure under s. 37 of the Act will depend on (a) fulfilment of requirements of that provision noted above and (b) on the fact whether all the ventures carried on by him constituted one indivisible business or not if they do the entire expenditure will be a permissible deduction but if they do not, the principle of apportionment of the expenditure will apply because there will be no nexus between the expenditure attributable to the venture not forming an integral part of the business and the expenditure sought to be deducted as the business expenditure of the assessee. 18. In the result, both these appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as indicated above.
-
2000 (10) TMI 186 - ITAT JODHPUR
Deduction U/S 80P(2)(e) ... ... ... ... ..... er the Act, the entire permissible expenditure in earning the income from that head is deductible and (iii) In computing profits and gain of business or profession when an assessee is carrying on business in various ventures and some among them yield taxable income and the other do not, the question of allowability of the expenditure under s. 37 of the Act will depend on (a) Fulfilment of requirements of that provision noted above and (b) on the fact whether all the ventures carried on by him constituted one indivisible business or not if they do the entire expenditure will be a permissible deduction but if they do not, the principle of apportionment of the expenditure will apply because there will be no nexus between the expenditure attributable to the venture not forming an integral part of the business and the expenditure sought to be deducted as the business expenditure of the assessee. 18. In the result, both these appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as indicated above.
-
2000 (10) TMI 184 - ITAT JAIPUR
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... question to M/s Vineet Trading Corporation have been made prior to 24th April, 1987, in cash and there are no purchase of any goods from that concern upto this date. It is, therefore, evident that the payment of Rs. 25,000 was not made for purchase of any goods or on any expenditure so as to attract any of the provisions as contained in s. 40A(3) of the IT Act. In view of the above findings, and the proviso to s. 40A(3), we are of the view that there is no case for making any addition of Rs. 25,000. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the said addition of Rs. 25,000. 5. The next issue relates to disallowance of car expenses. Similar issue came before us for hearing in the assessee s appeal in ITA No. 1836/Jp/1994. After hearing the rival submissions, we direct the AO to decide the issue as per our order in ITA No. 1836/Jp/1994. However, no interference is called on the question of application of depreciation. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 183 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... to the total income of the petitioner. This was wholly beyond the scope of the authority under s. 155. Therefore, we hold that the action of the AO in including the income of Rs. 6,50,000 in the order under s. 155(1) was beyond his jurisdiction and is, therefore, liable to be deleted as illegal. On merit also, we hold that since the method of accounting followed by the assessee in respect of his professional income was cash method of accounting, as accepted by the Revenue in the order for asst. yr. 1989-90, dt. 5th Feb., 1999, framed in assessee rsquo s own case, we do not see any reason as to why the said income of Rs. 6,50,000 is included into the total income on accrual basis in the year under appeal. We therefore, confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) and reverse the action of the AO inasmuch as it was in relation to the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 6,50,000 in the total income of the assessee in the year under appeal. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 182 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... t that the factum of repayment was the pointer to the genuineness of the loan transactions. Therefore, keeping in view the entire material placed before us and the law position as enunciated by Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the cases relied upon by the learned CIT(A) and by us supra, we are of the considered view that AO was justified in not being satisfied by the explanation offered by the assessee in relation to the impugned cash credits and he was justified in making additions of the cash credits under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 8. However, the plea of the assessee regarding the peak of the amount of the cash credit alone be added, is not without merit and we find, on the basis of the dates of receipts and dates of repayment of the impugned loans, the amount of peak credits comes to Rs. 33,000. Therefore, we direct the AO to restrict the addition to Rs. 33,000 and delete the balance addition of Rs. 12,500. We order accordingly. 9. In the result, appeal is allowed in part.
-
2000 (10) TMI 181 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Failure To Deposit Tax ... ... ... ... ..... take the plea of taxes having been paid by the payees themselves. This cannot be allowed, as was held by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench-D in the case of IAC vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (1999) 64 TTJ (Mumbai) 26 (1999) 68 ITD 205 (Mumbai). 12. It is seen by us from the pages of the paper book that assessment of the payee for asst. yr. 1992-93 was completed on 13th July, 1993, and that of asst. yr. 1993-94 completed on 17th Aug., 1994. As a result of the assessments, there were huge refunds allowed to the payee by the IT Department. Therefore, we direct the AO to charge interest under s. 201(1A) on Rs. 20,28,033 from 1st April, 1992, to 13th July, 1993, and on Rs. 11,44,266 from 1st Oct., 1992 to 17th Aug., 1994, i.e. upto the date of assessment of the payee. We derive support from the decision of the Tribunal Mumbai supra insofar as our direction to charge interest upto the date of assessments of the payee is concerned. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.
-
2000 (10) TMI 180 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... rkash Industries, which is also a limited company and the material which was purchased from Jai Parkash Industries, was duly invoiced and duly accounted for in the books of account. They were examined by the AO and then the claim was allowed. Therefore, the case of the assessee, is not hit by the Expln. 3 to s. 43(1). Expln. 4A, which came on the statute w.e.f.1st Oct., 1996, is not applicable, as the case of the assessee is for asst. yr. 1994-95. 15. In view of the discussion as made above, we are of the view that there was no collusiveness in the agreements entered by the assessee with the parties i.e., APSEB and Jai Parkash Industries and we hold that the transactions were genuine and they were examined by the AO. Therefore, there was no necessity for initiating the proceedings by the CIT under s. 263. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT passed under s. 263 and restore the original order passed by the AO. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 179 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... d that the depreciation on flats and garages was allowable. 2. As there was difference of opinion on the aforesaid two points, the matter was referred to a Third Member by the Hon ble President of the Tribunal under section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Third Member by means of an order dated 16-6-2000 has agreed with the view of the Accountant Member on both the issues i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 3. By means of the present order effect is being given to the majority opinion and this would mean that the relevant grounds in the revenue s appeal would stand rejected. 4. As regards the other grounds in the revenue s appeal, there is no difference of opinion between the Members who had constituted the Division Bench initially. In other words, the earlier orders passed by the Members are to be read alongwith the present order of the Tribunal and which would mean disposal of the revenue s appeal. 5. As result, the revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 178 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... blished. Hence, in my view, the entire matter is required to be proceeded with by neglecting the verbal denial of Shri Sukhani, unsupported by any documentary evidence and even his own books of account. I, therefore, agree with the views of the brother Judicial Member and uphold the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of the loan of Rs. 35,18,000 and interest thereon payable to M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj for the assessment year 1974-75 and also the addition of Rs. 3,60,000 in respect of interest payment for the same year and Rs. 3,81,144 for the assessment year 1975-76. So far as the W.T. assessments for these two years are concerned, I uphold the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). I am also of the opinion that neither the Income-tax assessments nor the Wealth-tax assessments are required to be set aside for the purpose of reframing the assessments. 11. The matters should, hereafter, go back to the Division Bench for the purpose for taking into consideration my opinion as above.
-
2000 (10) TMI 177 - ITAT BANGALORE-C
Immovable Property ... ... ... ... ..... ded for the purpose of valuation. Finance Act, 1992, had defined assets to include urban land. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is not at all tenable and is, accordingly, rejected. 30. All the appeals by the Department touch upon the method of valuation. This issue is fully considered by us in the earlier paragraphs and the observations made above would equally appeal to the various issues raised by the Department as well. 31. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. T.A. BUKTE, J.M. I agree on the point of status and the shares. However, I felt that on the point of rates at Cunningham Road, which is a posh and fully commercial Road, no leniency should have been shown in adopting the rates. But after going through the report I have come to a conclusion that the Department did not put much efforts in adopting the actual market value and in distributing the rates adopted by the assessee. Therefore, I need not interfere in showing leniency in adopting the lower rates.
-
2000 (10) TMI 176 - ITAT BANGALORE-B
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... hree gifts of Rs. 20,001 each received from Mr. Kiranlal Porwal, Mr. P.R. Saraswat and Mr. M.C. Govindaraju. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the cheques that the assessee had received as gifts at the time of the marriage were honoured by the persons who had issued the cheques. Merely for the reason that the donors had deposited cash into the bank account could not lead to the conclusion that it was unexplained gifts in the hands of the assessee. He further held that the donee could not be asked of the source. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, because the Department could not bring in material to suggest that the moneys that were deposited in the bank account of the donors were moneys that flowed from the assessee, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A), on this issue, does not call for any interference. Upholding his order on this point, as well, we reject the plea of the Department. 5. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 175 - ITAT BANGALORE
Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital Gains, Liquidation, Unabsorbed Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ation pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98 and onwards and not to the depreciation of earlier years which became part of the depreciation of the assessment year 1997-98 under the unamended provisions of section 32(2). Likewise, the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years could not take the character of current year s depreciation in the assessment year 1997-98 so as to be set off against the income from other than business head as amended provisions of section 32(2) came in force w.e.f. 1-4-1997. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 921 also supports this view interpreting amendment brought about in section 24(2)(iii) of the old Act regarding carry forward of business losses limiting the period of set off to eight years and holding that there was no vested right of carry forward. We thus find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), in this regard as well. 8. In result, the assessee s appeal is dismissed.
............
|
