|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 200 Records
-
1979 (7) TMI 151
... ...
... ... ..... amy Naicker retired. That clearly shows that the development rebate reserve was not deducted as a liability and it would, therefore, mean that all the assets have been properly taken in arriving for in the balance-sheet has been taken up for the first time before us in these grounds of appeal. The GTO has not commented on this nor was it the subject matter of any decision by the AAC. The Annexure, clearly indicates that it was an agreement by all the partners and in view of this the ground taken by the Department has no merit. No attempt has been made to verify the claim of such of those liabilities by reference to other partners. In view of our finding that the development rebate reserve has been taken into consideration, there is no merit in this departmental appeal. We also find that the Tribunal did consider this in the order referred to earlier. Considering all the circumstances, we hold that there is no merit in this departmental appeal and it is, accordingly dismissed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 150
... ...
... ... ..... ld not militate against the claim of the assessee. So far as the units at Ghasiabad and Nagpur are concerned, they are new units about which there is no dispute. They came into existence for the first time. Therefore, so long as the existing unit at Madras is not reorganised or expanded, the establishment of two units at Ghaziabad and Nagpur are altogether new units and, therefore the assessee will be entitled to the relief based on the decision of the Supreme Court in 1977 CTR (SC) 151 (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC). 5. The last common ground is that the AAC erred in holding that the liabilities should be dealt with in the computation of capital employed, on the basis of the decision of the Madras High Court in Madras Industrial Lining Ltd. (1978 CTR (Mad) 45 (1977) 110 ITR 256 (Mad). In the light of the decision of the Madras High Court cited above, we do not see any justification to interfere with the finding of the AAC in this regard. 6. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 149
... ...
... ... ..... dismissed the appeal as incompetent and non entertainable. The AAC s view on which the assessee seeks to rely regarding the extent of interest to be disallowed is based on the AAC rsquo s detailed discussion of the merits of the issue as will be seen from the appellate order This clearly shows that there is no mistake apparent from the record, which could be rectified under s. 154. It has been held by the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions Applying this ratio we are unable to hold that there is a patent error apparent on the record much less that it is an arithmetical mistake only as claimed by the assessee, We would therefore vacate the AAC s order and restore the ITO s order. 4. In the result the Revenue s appeal is allowed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 148
... ...
... ... ..... ction of the ITO that all other cash payments in the two years were made by the assessee to genuine parties and confirmation letters were filed. It is with reference to the Madras party during the first year and with reference to the Bangalore party in the second year that the assessee could not file the confirmation letters. When the assessee had proved satisfactorily the genuineness of the cash payment to a very large extent simply because the assessee could not get confirmation letters from the two parties for the small amounts, they cannot be disallowed under s. 40A(3) of the Act. We are satisfied that the two parties are genuine parties. The assessee has made the cash payment to them because the parties insisted cash payment and the purchases were made in Madras and Bangalore where the assessee had no Bank account. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we see no reason to make any disallowance. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 147
... ...
... ... ..... of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Smt. V. Kanakammal (1979) 118 ITR 94 (Mad). The cases relied upon by the Revenue do not assist us to decide the issue since in the case of CIT vs. Babu Ram Ram Kishan 1978 CTR (All) 209 (1979) 116 ITR 410 (All) all that stated was that penalty only be imposable even in the case of best judgment assessment and in the case of CIT vs. W.J. Walker and Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690 (Cal) it was pointed out that the burden cast by the Explanation must be discharged by the assessee before the burden could shift to the Revenue to prove actual concealment. Since on the facts of this case we have found that the burden cast by the Explanation has been discharged by the assessment and that there is no evidence to prove concealment of income it must be held that the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. We have therefore no hesitation in cancelling the penalty imposed. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 146
... ...
... ... ..... ., the accounting year for which the income is to the computed and this has no relevance to the months of the accounting year for which actually the rent was received. We say so because no such restriction is imposed in the provision. This would also be made clear from the fact that under s. 24(1)(ix) the ITO has to give a proportionate deduction for the period for which the property was vacant, but there is no corresponding stipulation that the interest should be proportionately allowed. Further in this case the assessee himself has agreed the annual letting value for the entire year to be taken as the basis. In the above circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the AAC rsquo s finding. We may add that our above view is also supported by the decision of the Madras Bench D of the Tribunal dt. 20th March, 1978 in ITA No. 2381 (Mad)/1977-78 in the case of Mr. G. Gopalakrishnan, Madras, for the asst. yr. 1976-77. 6. In the result the Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 145
... ...
... ... ..... earlier remained unchanged. In view of the later circular of the Board, the order of the AAC directing to continue the registration is not correct and the assessee has to satisfy the ITO regarding the conditions referred to in the Board rsquo s instruction dt. 4th April, 1978. It may be that the Tribunal or the AAC is not bound by the Board rsquo s instructions, but the ITO is bound by the latest Board rsquo s instruction. Since, the ITO rsquo s order is not in conformity with the latest Board rsquo s instruction, he has to pass a fresh order. As such the orders of the AAC as well as the ITO on the issue of the registration are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the ITO concerned for applying the latest Board rsquo s instruction dt. 4th April, 1978 and to pass fresh order according to law after giving the assessee sufficient opportunity. 8. In the result, the Deptl. appeal is treated as allowed and the issue involved is sent back to the ITO for fresh consideration.
-
1979 (7) TMI 144
... ...
... ... ..... nly point sought to be made out by the ld. Deptt. Rep. is that the letter of the Government of India, Dept. of Tourism dt. 12/18th July, 1974 cannot be given retrospective effect. However, a photostat copy of the letter produced before us clearly states that the hotels in question are on the approved list of the Government of India for the purpose mentioned therein during the years relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69 onwards. When there is specific reference that the assessee is entitled to such relief from the asst. yr. 1968-69 onwards the mere fact that the letter is dt. 12/18th July, 1974 will not deprive the assessee of its claim. For the purpose of ss. 32(1)(v), and 33(1)(b)(B)(ii), the assessee is entitled to the claim from the asst. yr. 1968-69 onwards with reference to the plant, machineries and buildings owned by the three hotels belonging to the assessee company. As such the order of the AAC on this point is confirmed. 4. In the result, the Deptl. appeal is dismissed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 133
... ...
... ... ..... ove shows that from 7th Aug., 1970 itself the assessee had been taking sincere steps to file the WT returns. It appears, thereafter the IT assessments were pending and that there were lot of discussions with the IT Authorities about those assessments and matters connected therewith. Then it was put in proper returns forms only later. So during the period 7th Aug., 1970 to 20 Aug., 1974 the assessee was honestly and sincerely occupied in taking the steps for furnishing the WT returns. So the period after 1970 is also well explained. So there is not much substance in the ground raised by the Department. There is also no contumacious conduct or other circumstances during the period 19th Aug., 1970 to 20th March, 1974, which would warrant invocation of penalty proceedings and imposition of penalties as indicated in Hindustan Steel s case (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). Therefore, it follows that these Departmental appeals has got to be dismissed. 4. So all the eight appeals are dismissed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 131
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings under s. 147(a) 148 of the Act, and in the reasons, it was stated that there was escapement of income, and the assessee failed to disclose agricultural income fully. The ITO never reopened the assessment under s. 147(b) of the Act. In the cases relied on by the revenue the notice under s. 148 of the Act, did not disclose whether the assessment was being reopened under s. 147(a) or 147 (b) of the Act. In view of particular facts of those cases, it was held that if on facts, 147 (b) is applicable, the same can be applied. The facts in the present case are quite different. The authorities below proceeded on the point whether initiation of proceedings under s. 147 (a) were valid or not. This point was rightly considered by the ld. AAC and he held that proceedings under s. 147 (a)/148 are bad in law. I agree with the finding of the ld. AAC on this point. 8. Thus, there is no substance in the present appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 130
... ...
... ... ..... oduced because some books were seized by the Police authorities and the others were destroyed in floods. Technically the assessment was made under s. 144 but, in such circumstances and as there was no material to doubt the genuineness of the firm, refusal of registration under s. 185(5) could not be just and proper. The filling of application in Form No. 11A was at the most a technical omission which was made good by the assessee later. The Kerala High Court decision in 116 ITR 172 relied upon by the Revenue rather supports the assessee s case. In that case also their Lordship held that the cancellation of registration had to be done after exercise of judicial discretion by the ITO. Their Lordship noticed in that case that such discretion had been exercised. We hold, taking an overall view of the facts, that the authorities below were not justified in refusing registration. We direct that the assessee should be treated as registered firm. 9. In the result the appeal succeeds.
-
1979 (7) TMI 129
... ...
... ... ..... itten off on personal considerations and hence he disallowed it. Before the AAC it was stated that the total amount of Rs. 2,455 included one major item of Rs. 2,028 in the name of Sri Jaganaukh Jamadar. It was stated that the amount in question could not be recovered due to the poor financial position of the party and also because of his subsequent death. No evidence was, however, led and further it could not be shown that the amount in question had been advanced for business purpose. For these reasons the ld. AAC sustained the disallowance. We are inclined to agree with the learned AAC. The assessee has to prove, firstly, that the advance was made for the purpose of business and, secondly, that it was irrecoverable. The assessee did not satisfy the ld. AAC that the amount in question was advanced for the purpose of business. Before us also no attempt has been made in this regard. Hence the disallowance is allowed to stand. 11. The result is that the appeal succeeds in part.
-
1979 (7) TMI 128
... ...
... ... ..... rdingly, the addition is deleted. 20. The ld. ITO, at the time of completing the assessment, initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. By his order dt. 22nd Sept., 1978, the ld. ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 holding the cash credit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of Shri Kundanlal to be the concealed income of the assessee. 21. Since the assessee was not successful before the AAC, it is in appeal before the Tribunal. 22. As stated above, the basis for the imposition of the penalty is the cash credit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of Shri Kundanlal. We have, in view of the discussions above, held the said cash credit to be genuine and deleted the addition of Rs. 10,000. Thus the very basis for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act no longer remains. We accordingly, cancel the impugned order of penalty, on this ground alone. 23. In the result, appeal No. 134/JP/1978-79 is allowed, in part and appeal No. 890/JP/1979 is allowed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 127
... ...
... ... ..... s been proved to be incorrect on the basis of other evidence as discussed above. 10. Looking to the aforesaid facts and the entirety of circumstances, in my opinion, Shri Suresh Kumar is major as on 1st Jan., 1974. On that date, he was between 20-21 years of age. Thus, the authorities below have erred in holding that Shri Suresh Kumar was minor on 1st Jan., 1974. The authorities below did not give other reason for holding that the firm was not genuine. All the formalities required for granting registration and continuation of registration have been fulfilled by the assessee. Thus, the firm is genuine. As such, it should be granted registration and continuation of registration for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and 1976-77 respectively. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are cancelled. The ITO is directed to grant registration to the firm for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and continuation of registration for the assessment year 1976-77. 11. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 126
... ...
... ... ..... ce under s. 143(2) of the Act. The income was determined by ITO at Rs. 22,360. In appeal it was reduced to Rs. 16,000 by the AAC. The assessee maintained books of accounts and the income shown was as per books. It was another matter that the assessment was completed under s. 144 but it was not disputed that books were regularly maintained by the assessee firm and it was not shown that the assessee s books were false or manipulated. In the case of this very assessee on similar ground penalty had been imposed in asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72. The Tribunal held that no fraud or gross or wilful neglect could be attributed to the assessee even though there was a difference of more than 20 per cent between the income-returned and assessed. Copy of the order dt. 7th Jan., 1978, has been filed. 4. We agree with the learned AAC that on facts and circumstances of the case penalty was not leviable on the assessee under Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 125
... ...
... ... ..... entitled to make withdrawals from their individual accounts in the firm at any time and invest the money anywhere they liked. He found that in spite of the withdrawals made by the partners, there was still a credit balance in their individual accounts, and hence the financial arrangements made by the assessee firm with its partners did not militate against any provisions of the IT Act. The Department is aggrieved by the above finding of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the Id, representatives of the parties, and, in our opinion, there is no substance in this ground taken by the Department. A similar point came up for our consideration in connection with the appeal filed by the Department in the case of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75. For the reasons discussed in detail in our order dt. 19th May, 1979, in ITA No. 375 (Ind)/1978-79, we hold that the CIT(A) was quite justified in deleting the disallowance of interest made by the ITO. 6. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 124
... ...
... ... ..... bject and is supported by the observations of the Supreme Court in 29 ITR 607 and 60 ITR 99. The judgement of the A.P. High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Chekka Ayyanna(3), fully supports this view of the matter. In the earlier Allahabad case there was a writ against the decision of the Commissioner (A) refusing to entertain a revision against the order of the AAC holding the appeal not to be maintainable. Notwithstanding the expression of view, their Lordships set aside the order of this Addl. Commissioner and directed him to consider the revision application afresh in the light of their observations. Therefore, the principle of law laid down in the earlier Allahabad case is itself by way of obiter dicta. The later view is also supported by CIT vs. Dinesh Chandra Industries(4), Sant Lal Kashmiri Lal vs. CIT(5), and ITO, A-Ward, Sarangpur vs. M/s Janta Finance(6), a Tribunal decision given by the Chandigarh Bench. Consequently, we find no force in these appeals and dismiss the same.
-
1979 (7) TMI 123
... ...
... ... ..... igure in those years the gross profit would have been lower by the value of those items of closing stock. Therefore, it is obvious that when these items have entered into the business income of the assessee in the earlier years, consequently such increase in the gross profit when these stocks are no longer with the assessee gets adjusted in the accounting year. The ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court, in my opinion, will fit in. I am, therefore, of the view that as against such income already taxed, the set off of the value of the stock so adjusted now will have to be made. That is the effect in the view that the Accountant Member has taken. For the reasons expressed above, I agree with him that the assessee s claim should be allowed. Order dt. 11th July, 1979 N. KRISHNAN, A.M. In conformity with decision of the Third Member, an amount of Rs. 1,10,534 should be allowed as deduction while computing the business for this year. 2. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 122
... ...
... ... ..... e us at present. It is, therefore, urged that the orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained. 4. On behalf of the Revenue the authorised representative relies on the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have taken into account the contentions of both the sides. We find that the assessee has given its explanation for the delay in filing of the return which the ITO found to be not satisfactory. No material or discussion was brought out in the penalty order to establish that the delay in filing of the return was without reasonable cause. The assessee has given its cause for the delay and it is for the ITO to establish that that cause was not reasonable. We further find that the discussion of AAC in his appellate order related to the circumstances of the earlier year. The material and the facts placed before us in the present appeal are inadequate to justify imposition of the above penalty. We are of the view that the penalty cannot be sustained, which we hereby cancel
-
1979 (7) TMI 121
... ...
... ... ..... djustment for advance tax which enhanced the valuation of the share to Rs. 21,678. In our opinion, here also the assessee cannot be held guilty of any concealment or even of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The assessee merely followed two different methods of valuing the shares in the original and the revised returns. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee made two legal submissions also. The first was that the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty on 27th March, 1978, and, secondly that the assessee had not been allowed any opportunity to show whether the Expln. to s. 18(1)(c) of the Act was also applicable to the case. In the view we have taken on merits, that no penalty is leviable in this case, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the above legal contentions. We, therefore, cancel the penalty of Rs. 2,27,555 as imposed by the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
........
|
