|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 111 Records
-
1976 (1) TMI 51 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ausible explanations for the omission to show the Annuity Deposit Refund and the notional income for property in the returns filed by him. The addition on account of allegedly low drawings is based only on disbelief of the explanation offered by the assessee regarding his other sources of income, namely, agricultural income from his father-in-law rsquo s lands which are cultivated by him. Having regard to these facts, it could not be said that the assessee had either concealed particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The omission to disclose the notional A.L.V. of property and the Annuity Deposit Refund would appear to be merely due to inadvertent oversight as a result of ignorance and could not be attributed to any intention on the part of the assessee to conceal such particulars. In the result, we agree with the AAC that this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c). 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 50 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lenient view and the learned assessing authority was justified. In considering that imposition of heavier penalty in the earlier years had had the desired effect and therefore smaller penalty during this year would be adequate. The learned Additional Commissioner has also conceded that some consideration could have been made by the assessing authority but it seems he himself was not prepared to make any consideration for the voluntary deposit by the dealer. The order observation does not tell us why the order of penalty has considered to be erroneous. It merely says that penalty was inadequate keeping in view the tax evaded. The circumstances of the case were however such that a lenient view was justified and it must be held that it has bot been established that the order of penalty was erroneous, and therefore revision u/s 39 (2) was not called for. 5. The appeal is allowed and the order of revision by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax u/s 39(2) the Act is set aside.
-
1976 (1) TMI 49 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... d the ITO could have assessed the firm under s. 144 if it had not filed a return. But since the ITO has not done so, it would be inferred that the assessee ultimately filed the return voluntarily. In the circumstances, we hold that since the assessee was entertaining a bonafide belief that it is not to file the return of its income as its income is below taxable limit, there is a sufficient cause shown by the assessee for not filing the return in time. In this we are further supported by a decision of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court reported in 92 ITR 338 wherein their Lordships in the case of CIT vs. N. Khan and Brothers, have held as under mdash In the case before us, we have seen that the additions made in the assessment are due to trading results and as such the assessee could reasonably entertain the belief that it income is below taxable limit. 5. In the result, the orders of the authorities below are reversed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 48 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... f the assessee. 7. On behalf of the assessee it was submitted that this would mean only a duplication of the procedure because in all probability the ITO will merely repeat what she has done already and make the assessment as an AOP after declining registration. There is some truth in this argument but having regard to the statutory provisions this duplication cannot be avoided. That apart since I have set aside these assessments with the observation that the genuineness of the partnership has to be considered in the proceedings for registration, it is clear that the observations in the present order will not operate conclusively against the assessee. 8. It will be open to the assessee to put forward his contentions as to the genuineness f the firm before the ITO and I am sure that the ITO will dispose of the application for registration objectively and without being influenced by the conclusion already arrived at. With these observations these appeals are treated as allowed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 47 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... tention urged on behalf of the assessee. The orders of the ITO and AAC are set aside and the ITO is directed to give an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect in the application for registration. As mentioned already, the assessee has actually filed an application in form No. 11-A already. It is for the ITO to consider whether this application itself could be taken on record or whether he would consider it necessary to ask the assessee to file another application in form No. 11-A afresh. The ITO will them proceed to dispose of the application for registration and also make a consequential modification in the assessment of the firm. This appeal will be treated as allowed. 9. At the time of the hearing before me, on behalf or of the assessee, a fresh ground was sought be taken by way of an additional ground. This is very much belated and also requires an investigation on certain facts. I, therefore, decline to admit this additional ground. It is, therefore, rejected.
-
1976 (1) TMI 46 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... vidence of the fact that the joint family funds were not utilised as the capital of the firm by the partners. Whether the Karta of the family would utilise the funds of the family as capital in the firm or as advanced to the firm is a matter entirely in between the Karta and his family and cannot concern the firm as such. Therefore we cannot accept the contention of the Revenue that the nature of the capital cannot be changed without a proper dissolution of the firm. Since the Karta of their own respective families have chosen to replace the family funds with their own funds as share capital of the firm it would follow that the income from the firm belonged only to the individuals concerned and cannot be assessed in the hands of respective joint families. We must therefore uphold the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner excluding the share of income from the firm from the assessment of respective Hindu undivided families. 6. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 45 - CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... straps was there which has been included later. Hence this cannot establish purchase suppression. The other item is purchase of fan in the name of Sunakar. The appellant s explanation has been rejected as he has obtained no receipt from Sunakar, by delivering the fan. I may say that no instance has been found out to show that the dealer carries on business in fan. When the cash memo is in the name of Sunakar and it is only in respect of one fan, it cannot be said that the dealer purchased that fan in the name of Sunakar for his business. Hence this will not establish purchase suppression. The other charge is non-maintenance of the sale register. But it is observed that sales are supported by cash memos. Hence not carrying the sales recorded in the cash memos into the sale book is an irregularity. In that view his accounts should not be rejected. 9. In the result, the returned figures are accepted and the enhancement made, are annulled. Tax paid anything in excess be refunded.
-
1976 (1) TMI 44 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ners. These drawings are said to have been utilised for repayment. It was argued that it should not be taken as concealed income. The Departmental Representative submitted that the drawings made by the partners which allegedly was used in the repayment to Bandra Tea Mart had already been considered in explaining certain other investments and it could not be available for this purpose. But in view of the entries etc. We think that concealment of such an amount cannot be taken as proved. It is not necessary for us to say that the entire Rs. 20,000 is concealed income. After deducting the closing cash balance of Rs. 33,000 the assessee is left only with Rs. 1,309 to explain. Considering this smallness of the amount and the relevant facts and circumstances of the case we think that for 1969-70 no penalty should have been imposed. That order will be cancelled. 22. In the result, the appeals for the asst. yrs. 1962-63 to 1967-68 are dismissed and the appeal for 1969-70 is allowed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 43 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... d out by you. Incidentally it is submitted that there is absolutely no other irregularity in the books of accounts apart from the difference in the bank accounts . The assessments were completed and penalty proceeding were initiated. The High Court held that on the facts of the case no penalty should have been imposed. 11. The matter was taken up on further appeal by the Department to the Supreme Court and in the reported decision in CIT vs. H.A. Mohammed Maneef 83 ITR 215 (SC) the Supreme Court held that there was no basis for coming to a conclusion that the assessee supplied wrong particulars and therefore, penalty could not be imposed. 12. The similarity of the facts of the two cases are some what startling. In view of the close similarity of the facts of the case it will be difficult for us to come to a conclusion contrary to what the High Court and the Supreme Court had taken in that case. 13. We will, therefore, hold that penalty is not leviable. The appeal is allowed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 42 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... e case to be taken into consideration. The donee may sell the property the next day and keep the entire money in cash with him or even invest it in a bank to earn interest. The amount of income from the gifted property is not always a constant factor. A house property may fetch rental income. It may also for an unexpected period of time remain vacant. In agricultural lands there may be crop failure. Under these circumstances we do not think that income from gifted property is a circumstances of the case to the taken into consideration because that is an elusive, evasive and uncertain factor. For the education in India and abroad it is only reasonable to think that a sum of Rs. 50,000 is absolutely essential. So the gift to the extent of Rs. 50,000 will be eligible for exemption under s. 5(1)(xii) of the GT Act. Therefore, we allow as exemption of Rs. 50,000 (fifty-thousand). 11. The appeal is allowed is allowed in part. The assessment to gift tax will be modified accordingly.
-
1976 (1) TMI 41 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... he same sense in which the word serve has been used. Therefore, a notice of reassessment issued against the assessee within the period of limitation but served on the assessee after the period would be without jurisdiction and void. During the course of this judgement, the High Court has considered the Supreme Court judgment is Banarsi Devi and Anr. vs. ITO the Calcutta High Court judgment in Lilooah Steel and Wire Co. Ltd. vs. ITO and the Gujarat High Court judgment in Shanabhai P. Patel vs. Upadhaya (RP, ITO which were also referred to before the AAC. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the AAC was perfectly justified in holding that the notice issued under s. 148 was without jurisdiction and void. Since the notice under s. 148 itself was void, the AAC was further justified in cancelling the assessment as being without jurisdiction. There is thus no merit in the Revenue s appeal. 4. No other point was argued at the time of hearing. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 40 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... er deduction of interests expenses. The expression any income by way of dividends occurring in s. 80K and in s. 80M has already been considered by the Bombay High Court in the case of New Grant Insurance Co. Ltd. 90 ITR 348 (Bom) and it has been held therein that such exemption is contemplated in regard to the whole of the dividend received and is not restricted to the dividend as assessee after deduction of expenses. The language used in s. 80-L is similar namely, any income by way of dividends from Indian company and, therefore, on the same analogy it must be held that the income by way of dividends included in the gross total income of the assessee is the entire dividend of Rs. 2,457 and not the dividend amount as reduced by the interest expenses. Following the ratio of 90 ITR 348 (Bom), therefore, I hold that the authorities below were in error in rejecting the assessee s claim for deduction in terms of s. 80-L(i) of the IT Act, 1961. 5.The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 39 - ITAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... rguable or debatable. Mr. Pourana has not disputed that the decision given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is no good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court above referred. He has further not disputed that the law as propounded by the Supreme Court is the law of the land and it has to be followed. It cannot be denied that the question is unarguable and that no debate is possible on the point in question. Under the circumstances, we do not think how a reference is such case could lie. The only remedy is of rectification. We, therefore, do not think that there is any substance in the above contention of Mr. Pourane. In the result, the application will have to be allowed. Order The rectification applications are allowed. As the appeals were allowed by the Tribunal on the question that the notice was bad, the orders passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeals are set aside and the appeals are restored to the file and, will be fixed for hearing on merits in due course.
-
1976 (1) TMI 38 - ITAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... 75 in the case of Sham Sarang Fine Arts vs. The State of Maharashtra. The relevant portion in the said judgment relates to the question of the inclusion of the insurance charges in the sale price. The problem in the present case is different. It relates to items such as interest charges and hundi charges which as seen above, do not form part of the sale price but are charges arising merely on account of a grant of facility of payment of the sale price by instalments. Shri N. C. Mehta for the appellant did not advance any other arguments and did not press any other contentions. 10. In view of the above considerations, the impugned orders of the lower authorities holding interest charges and hundi charges to be part of the sale price cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the Asstt. Commissioner are hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the Asstt. Commissioner for recomputation in the light of the observations contained above.
-
1976 (1) TMI 37 - ITAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ills could not have been made. It has, therefore, been urged that the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the dealer had recovered the taxes on resale of oil engines etc., is not correct. As stated before, this is an application for rectification under s. 62 of the Act and unless there is a mistake and that mistake is apparent from the record it cannot be rectified. The submission made by the dealer, as stated before, is that the inference drawn by the Tribunal from the bills produced is not correct. Assuming for the sake of argument that the inference drawn is not correct, we do not think for that the remedy is of rectification. If the submission made by the applicant is accepted to be correct it would mean that we will be sitting in appeal over the decision given by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 1403 of 1973. decided on 31st March, 1973. The application therefore, will have to be rejected. Hence, the order. Order The rectification application is dismissed as rejected.
-
1976 (1) TMI 36 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... he AAC has not considered it. It is too late in the day for the Department to rely the Expln. to s. 27(1)(c) because the Explanation raises a rebuttable presumption that where the total income returned is less than 80 per cent of the total income assessed, he shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of his correct income or furnished in accurate particulars thereof unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part. On the facts, the Explanation does appear to apply. However, the assessee had a right to explain and to rebut the presumption by proving that the failure to return the correct income did not arise out of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The ITO, by not invoking the Explanation has denied him the opportunity. The Department cannot, therefore, now raise that point and attempt to sustain the order of penalty on that point. 7. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and cancel the penalty.
-
1976 (1) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... argument advanced by learned counsel for the assessee before us that the term along with may be read as in addition to as indicated in Stroud s Judicial Dictionary, volume I, page 118. Though we have indicated that the requirement that the certificate should be produced along with the return is not mandatory we may not be taken to mean that the furnishing of the certificate is not mandatory. The only controversy is whether there is an obligation to file the certificate simultaneously with the filing of the return with the necessary consequence that non-compliance will result in forfeiture of the claim to development allowance. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court as required under section 260(1) of the Act. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... . Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case an individual made gifts to his wife and the wife invested the sum in a firm and became a partner. She received a share of profits of the firm. The question was whether the share of profit was liable to be assessed in the hands of the husband. It was held that as the profit arose primarily, because the partnership made a profit, though that has a connection with the gift, it did not arise as a result of the gift and that the income arose only because the other partners had agreed to take her as a partner. As taking her as a partner was not as a result of the gift, it was held that the income of the share of profits in the firm could not be included in the total income of the husband under the provisions of section 64(iii). We are of the same view. It follows that the question referred to us has to be and is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will have his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1976 (1) TMI 33 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Debts And Incumbrances, Estate Duty, Principal Value Of Estate ... ... ... ... ..... that case the concerned employee met with a violent death while actually discharging his duties whereas in the present case the deceased employee died in natural circumstances while undergoing training abroad on behalf of the assessee-company would not make the slightest difference in the application of the principle. These four decisions show by and large that the approach of the courts in these matters has been pragmatic and that in the later cases at broader view has been taken. From the foregoing discussion it would appear that in the instant case the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that it did and that the payment made to the daughter of the deceased employee of the assessee-company was rightly held to be a permissible deduction under section 37. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to the cost of the reference. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Or Profession, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... to the bonus Act in understanding the words salary and bonus is permissible. The learned counsel for the revenue referred to the original provision 40(c)(iii) which was inserted on April 1, 1963, and contended that at the time when the original provision was inserted, the Payment of Bonus Act was not in force, and it will have to be understood with reference to the law relating to bonus at the time when the provision was originally inserted. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel also, as the original provision was different and was completely omitted and a new provision was substituted with effect from April 1, 1964. We are of the view, therefore, that having regard to the general understanding of the word bonus , payment of bonus should be treated as forming part of the salary itself. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
|
