|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 135 Records
-
1976 (8) TMI 90
... ...
... ... ..... o amount of Rs. 2,000 out of mill machinery expenses is not maintainable as the decision is in favour of the assessee. As regards the following expenses the AAC sustained a disallowance of Rs. 1,000. However, we feel that the disallowance is excessive. We, therefore, reduce the disallowance to Rs. 500. The assessee thus gets a relief of Rs. 500 in this account. As regards the shop expenses AAC sustained a disallowance of Rs. 1,500. However, we feel that the disallowance of Rs. 1,500 is excessive. We, therefore, restrict the disallowance to Rs. 1,000. The assessee thus gets a relief of Rs. 500 in this account. 21. No other grounds have been pleaded or pressed in Cross Objections No. 85 (Pat) of 1975-76. 22. In view of our findings above, the departmental appeals being ITA Nos. 1502, 1503 and 1504 (Pat) of 1975-76 are dismissed. Even the assessee rsquo s appeal being I.T.A. No. 1546 (Pat) 1975-76 is dismissed. Cross Objection Nos. 85 and 86 (Pat) of 1975-76 are allowed in part.
-
1976 (8) TMI 89
... ...
... ... ..... e or part exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, the amount that shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee under the clause shall be one hundred thousand rupees. Thus, it is evident that if the assessee is owner of more than one building on or before 1st April, 1972, the exemption shall be available only in respect of any one building. 11. Unfortunately, in this case the assessee never claimed this exemption either before the WTO or before the AAC and so there is no evidence whether the assessee has a residential building besides factory building. Thus, this issue involves investigation of facts which cannot be allowed at this stage. Moreover, the ground relating to exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the said Act does not arise out of the order of the AAC and so we cannot allow the assessee to raise this ground at the Tribunal stage. We, therefore, reject this ground of the assessee in the asst. yr. 1972-73. 12. In the result, all the four appeals are allowed in part.
-
1976 (8) TMI 85
... ...
... ... ..... gs and business. All these have to be first evaluated. It is after arriving at the value of all the assets that the other liabilities of the assessee have to be deducted therefrom and the net wealth arrived at. While the WTO is considering the value of the business assets over the liabilities but the liability is not to be confused with the debts mentioned in s. 2(m). They are two different things. The provisions of s. 2(m) do not come at this stage of valuation. They come at a much later stage i.e. after the ascertainment of all the value of all the assets against which the claim for deduction for liabilities has to be considered. 6. Looked at from this point view it would be clear that there is no need for the WTO to invoke the provisions of s. 2(m) and exclude the liability. The loan does not come to be excluded under any other provision. On the facts of the case, exclusion of liabilities under s. 2(m) is not attracted. We will therefore, allow the assessee rsquo s appeal.
-
1976 (8) TMI 83
... ...
... ... ..... the share-holders was not with a view to avoiding or reducing any liability, the assessee is not precluded by the provisions of s. 79(b) from carrying forward the loss prior to the year of change and setting it off against the income of this year. Therefore in any view of the matter, the assessee was entitled to carry forward the losses prior to the year of change as well as the loss of the preceding years and set them off against the income of this assessment. 12. In our opinion, therefore, no interference is required in respect of the assessment year 1973-74. But the orders of the authorities below in respect of assessment year 1974-75 cannot stand and must be set aside in respect of the claim to carry forward and set off the losses prior to the year of change. We direct the Income-tax Officer to grant the claim of the assessee in accordance with our decision above. 13. In the result, appeal No. 2031/(Mad) 1974-75 is dismissed and appeal No. 1162 (Mad) /1975-76 is allowed.
-
1976 (8) TMI 81
... ...
... ... ..... The right to recover rent from this property is to be assessed under the Wealth-tax Act and in evaluating this property the market value of the right has to be ascertained having regard to the circumstances set forth above. The assessee rsquo s representative appears to have agreed to the addition on a misconception of the correct legal position. As pointed out earlier, the Wealth-tax Officer also has misdirected himself in rejecting the assessee rsquo s claim by treating the claim as if it is a claim for allowance for bad debt. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the assessment to the file of the Wealth-tax Officer with a direction to determine the market value of the right to receive the rent from the Calcutta property on the valuation date and include such market value in the net wealth of the assessee in accordance with law and complete the assessment afresh. 4. For the purposes of statistics, the appeal is treated as allowed in part.
-
1976 (8) TMI 80
... ...
... ... ..... ason that the property was thrown into the family hotchpot. Not being coparceners of the appellant, they have neither a right by birth in the property nor the right to deemed its partition nor indeed the right to restrain the appellant from alienating the property for any purpose what ndash so ndash ever. Their prior right to be maintained out of the income of Kathoke Lodge remains what it was even after the property was thrown into the family hotchpot the right of maintenance neither more nor less. Thus, Kathoke Lodge may be usefully described as the property of the family after it was thrown into the common stock, but it does not follow that in the eye of Hindu law it belongs to the family, as it would have, if the property were to develop on the appellant as a sole surviving coparcener. We, therefore, accept the assessee rsquo s contention that the clubbing of the income that arose to the Hindu undivided family in the individual assessment of the assessee is not warranted.
-
1976 (8) TMI 75
... ...
... ... ..... the effect that the objections raised by the assessee in his letter dated 2nd March, 1974 are either incorrect or false. Further as correctly observed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income Tax Officer in all fairness could have given some more time to the assessee as requested by him for the reasons mentioned in his letter dated 2nd March, 1974. 7. On a consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee had no reasonable opportunity to comply with the terms of the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer. Further, for the reasons set out by the assessee in his letter dated 2nd March, 1974, the correctness of which is not controverted, we are also satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the terms of the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed.
-
1976 (8) TMI 74
... ...
... ... ..... valuation of the property No. 22A, Srinivasa Perumal Sannadhi Street, Madras, we find that the property is an old Madras-terraced house. It was admittedly used as a night school. According to the Department this land is supposed to be taken on lease for 99 years. The learned counsel for the accountable persons denied the lease for 99 years and contended that it was only a lease for month-to-month. There is no material on record to support either of the above contentions. The value of the land has been taken at Rs. 16,500. The ground rent is said to be only Rs. 4 per half year. The site appears to belong to a local temple. In view of the fact that the assessee claims that the land was taken on lease on monthly basis and there is no evidence contra, we would accept the assessee rsquo s contention that no value should be taken for the land. In this view of the matter we would estimate the value of this property at round sum of Rs. 10,000 only. 6. The appeals are allowed in part.
-
1976 (8) TMI 71
... ...
... ... ..... atisfied that there was sufficient cause and the AAC was not justified in rejecting the appeal as time barred. Actually, we ought to restore the appeal to the AAC for a decision de novo on merits. But we find that the assessment order itself has to be set aside in view of the fact that it was passed without considering the appellant rsquo s request for adjournment on record and this is further wrong in view of the fact that the order was passed on the same day of the date of hearing. Hence we feel that it is better that the appellant is not put to the formality of appearing before the AAC. We therefore set aside the order of the assessing authority is therefore set aside so that the matter could be proceeded with by the assessing authority after giving the appellant a fresh opportunity in accordance with the law. Consequently the order of AAC also stands set aside. 4. In the result the appeal is allowed. The assessment is set aside for being redone in accordance with the law.
-
1976 (8) TMI 70
... ...
... ... ..... ntract could have very well been performed without such movement as from local stocks. Even assuming that there was a movement, there is a break in such movement when the appellant rsquo s breach cleared the goods, took it in their stock at the branch and thereafter supplied the goods. The supply of other similar goods from the godown would not have amounted to a breach of contracts. 10. It is not disputed that the assessee is assessed to central Sales Tax and that the Bombay buyers have paid Bombay sales tax to the Bombay branch of the assessee. Therefore, the elements constituting inter-State sales in the turnover of Rs. 20,694 are absent. Hence, the turnover of Rs. 20,694 is not of inter-State sale character which is liable to assessment under the Act. Therefore, we find this point accordingly in favour of the appellant. 11. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the AAC set aside so far as the disputed turnover of Rs. 20,694 is concerned.
-
1976 (8) TMI 69
... ...
... ... ..... risdiction of the Tribunal cannot be more elastic while dealing with State rsquo s claim for enhancement. This limited view of the Tribunal rsquo s jurisdiction is the view generally accepted under the analogous provision under IT Act, 1922 and 1961., though the question of enhancement does not arise under these Acts. In fact this issue before us had specifically come up before this Tribunal in TA 913 and others of 73 dt. 10th July, 1974 and this Tribunal was of the view that it did not have such wide powers as assumed by the learned State Representative. Following the same view we dismiss the Enhancement petitions in limine without going into merits. 7. In the result the appellant rsquo s claim for exemption as second sales for Rs. 20,000 for 1970-71 and Rs. 2,000 for 1971-72 are remanded to the assessing authority. The other claims for these two years and the appeals for asst. yr. 1972-73 and 1973-74 are dismissed. Enhancement Petitions for all the years are also dismissed.
-
1976 (8) TMI 68
... ...
... ... ..... tween the appellants and the foreign buyers. The appellants entered into contracts with Agents (India) (P) Limited, Calcutta, for export to Saigon. The Calcutta exporters entered into separate contracts with the foreign buyers. The privity of contracts was only between the Calcutta exporters and foreign buyers. The Calcutta exporters acted through their shipping agents at Madras. It is only the contract between the Calcutta exporters and the foreign exporters that occasioned the exporters within the meaning of s. 5 of Central Sales-tax Act. As the contract between the appelicants and the Calcutta, buyers did not occasion the export, there is no scope for the appellants to contend that the disputed sales are export sales. Resultantly the action of the authorities in rejecting the claim of the appellants under the plea of export sales, is in order, within the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Mohammed Serajuddeen rsquo s case. 5. Resultantly both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1976 (8) TMI 63
... ...
... ... ..... he Central Government in the aforesaid manner illegal. We have already seen that s. 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 does not override the specific provisions of the IT Act, and when, in exercise of the powers vested by the said Act, the Tribunal formulates the Rules governing the conduct of proceedings before it, the said rules have to be read as part of the IT Act itself, and as such their validity or otherwise has to be examined only with reference to the provisions of the IT Act and no other Act. There being nothing in the said Act, which prohibits the framing of the Rule in the aforesaid manner, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the assessee on this account also. 10. In the result we find that the objection raised on behalf of he assessee to the appearance of the authorised representative Shri S.R. Vaish and Shri N.N. Bhatia for the Deptt. have no substance. The same are, therefore, hereby rejected. The appeal may now be fixed for hearing in the normal course.
-
1976 (8) TMI 62
... ...
... ... ..... ed part of the jewellery lying with him from before. He fell seriously ill in 1955 and it was then that he created a trust of Rs. 53,000 for the marriages of his daughters. Jewellery and ornament lying with him were also set apart of their marriages. Residential property was also divided between his two sons. His claim about the creation of the trust and the gift of the residential property has been found to be correct. There is, therefore, no justification for disbelieving his statement about the allocation of jewellery for the marriages of his various daughters. The fact that the assessee is financially well of is also accepted. There was, therefore, nothing unlikely in the jewellery being already available with him. In any case there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the jewellery given by him to his daughters has been purchased by him during this year. 8. In view of the above, we allow the appeal and cancel the assessment made in pursuance of the notice under s. 148.
-
1976 (8) TMI 61
... ...
... ... ..... used by the assessee for the purpose of manure, we fail to understand as to how the claim for deduction on account of wastage could be reduced on this account. In the result, we direct that the entire amount of Rs. 35,000 should be allowed as a deduction from the total income. 9. Regarding the cross objection filed by the revenue, we find that the tribunal had occasion to consider the very same point for the earlier year and it was held that wastage as recorded in the E.B. 3 Register should be allowed as a permissible deduction. On perusal of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, we find that he was satisfied that the amount of Rs. 35,000 was properly recorded in the E.B. 3 Register and in view of this, we hold that he was justified in giving direction that the wastage as recorded in the E.B. 3 Register should be allowed as a permissible deduction. 10. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed and the Cross Objection taken by the revenue is dismissed.
-
1976 (8) TMI 60
... ...
... ... ..... reme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department In the case of Mohammad Haneef reported in 83 ITR 215 their lordships of Supreme Court held in an identical manner. In another case reported in 1973 Taxation volume 34 S. 1 page no. 25 in the case of Mansa Ram and Sons their lordship of Allahabad High Court dealt with the facts wherein certain amounts were surrendered by the assessee to be included as income after discussion with the ITO with the result that Rs. 1,00,000 was added as income from other sources including Rs. 50,000 surrendered by the assessee. The IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,000 but the Tribunal in appeal cancelled the penalty. The Department went in reference wherein there Lordship of the Allahabad High Court referring to the cases of Anwar Ali and Durga Timber held that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty. Thus in view of the above we cancel the penalty imposed by the IAC. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1976 (8) TMI 59
... ...
... ... ..... agents to provide meals to the constituents who stay on for luch or dinner sometimes. In the circumstances, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was, in our opinion, justified in allowing the assessee s claim to the extent of Rs. 5,000 on account of expenses incurred in running the kitchen for this purpose. 7. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Briji Raman Dass and Sons, is distinguishable for two reasons. Firstly, it is not a case of commission agent. Secondly the nature of expenses in that case was different. The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of ACC-Vickers Baboock Ltd. Is also distinguishable. In that case the Tribunal had found on facts that the expenditure incurred therein was in the nature of entertainment. In the present case, the facts are different on the basis of which we have come to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not in the nature of entertainment. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1976 (8) TMI 58
... ...
... ... ..... to us we held that since the property had been vacant only for part of the accounting year the conditions in the section are fully satisfied and the assessee is entitled to the vacancy allowance. We distinguished the case from the Calcutta High Court decision relied on by the CIT. 5. The question principally is directed against the finding that the period between July, 1969, and March, 1970 would from part of the year. Now the accounting year is from April, 1969, to March, 1970 and therefore, the period we are concerned with would definitely form part of the year. It is so simple that it does not require a reference to the High Court. The application is rejected.
-
1976 (8) TMI 57
... ...
... ... ..... y and even after she attained majority, she did not have any right to the trust income which arose during her minority and her only right was to enjoy the income arising from the enlarged trust funds, i.e., the original trust funds and the accumulation of trust income during her minority. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 410 was not the income of Chandrika, but was the income of the trustees and the income was impressed with a trust, namely, that it should be added to the trust corpus. It will be clear from the passage extracted above, that no income had accrued to the minor and when the two minor partners in this case are situated in exactly similar circumstances we have to give a finding that no income had accrued to them either. This means that there is no payment to the minors. Since there is no payment made to the minor partners, the provisions of s. 40(b) would not apply. We, therefore, find nothing wrong in the reasonings of the AAC. 10. The departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1976 (8) TMI 56
... ...
... ... ..... n was furnished. So, the ITO had no jurisdiction to impose penalty in this case. It lay with the IAC. On this simple technical point as to who should punish the assessee for concealment, the assessee succeeds because he was punished by a person who has no authority to punish. 4. The submission of the Departmental Representative that the law as to who should impose penalty is only procedural in nature, that it is only the quantum of penalty that is substantive in nature and that, therefore, on the relevant date on which penalty proceedings were initiated or the ITO came to satisfy about concealment, he had and it is he only who had, the jurisdiction to impose the penalty in case where the concealment of income is less than, Rs. 25,000 is not acceptable to us. The question of jurisdiction, i.e., who should, after satisfying that there is concealment, impose penalty is always a matter of substantive law. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The penalty imposed is cancelled.
|
