Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 135 Records
-
1980 (11) TMI 75 - ITAT COCHIN
... ... ... ... ..... The lapse of three months between execution and presentation show that there was no urgency. 6. The other reasons like illegal business failure to bring in stipulated capital, failure to close account in the appointed date and omission to divide the profits among the partners in equal proportions and crediting it to their individual accounts are no reason to refuse registration. The CIT(A) has rightly rejected those. The Rules only require for a declaration that the profit is or will be divided in the same proportion. The account books were taken by the ITO before the accounts were closed. There is also no case for the ITO that profits have been actually divided in a proportion different from that of the partnership deed. We are also not going into the question of eligibility of the registration on the second application furnished on 11th Jan., 1977. 7. Appeal allowed. The assessee firm is entitled to registration for this asst. yr. 1974-75. The ITO is directed to allow it.
-
1980 (11) TMI 74 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ... ... ... ..... nclusive between the parties only in relation to the assessment for that year and the decision given in an assessment for an earlier year are not binding either on the assessee or the Department in a subsequent year. But this rule is subject to limitations for there should be finality and certainty in all litigations including litigation arising out of the IT Act and an earlier decision on the same question cannot be reopened if that decision is not arbitrary or perverse, if it had been arrived at after due inquiry if no fresh facts are placed before the Tribunal giving the later decision, and if the Tribunal giving the earlier decision has taken into consideration all material evidence. 15. Since the situation created by the ITO has come to be remedied by the AAC, we see no justification for interfering with his orders. It would have been better if the AAC had given all the necessary facts but we have taken care of that aspect. 16. In the result, Revenue s appeal dismissed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 73 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ... ... ... ..... led the return of net wealth alongwith the particulars of his interest in the firm in which he was a partner. The amount of Rs. 24,000 which was initially not disclosed and which was admittedly liable to wealth-tax would be subject matter of further wealth-tax levy of about Rs. 250. Therefore, when the additional tax liability for disclosing the amount was marginal, no assessee would ordinarily attempt a non-disclosure of the amount when the penal consequences would be extremely onerous. Therefore, having regard to the balance of probability and having regard to the normal conduct, we are of the opinion that the omission to disclose the impugned amount was due to bona fide error and not with a view to evading legitimate liability to tax We, therefore, hold that this is not at all a fit case for imposition of penalty. We accordingly quash the orders of the authorities below and direct the WTO to refund the amount of penalty paid if any 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 72 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ... ... ... ..... lment necessitating the assessee to take recovery proceedings for the balance. In the context of these facts, the mere claim of the assessee for full amount in the legal proceedings instituted against the foreign party cannot mean that the assessee still hoped to recover the full amount and therefore the claim is premature. It is but common business prudence that when forced to take legal steps against the defaulting customer, the assessee must make as tall a claim as possible which it has done by not only claiming the full amount but also by impleading the bank as a defendant. The fact, however, has no significance to the decision of the question arising before us. For the reasons stated above, we allow the deduction of the further amount of Rs. 8,60,057 disallowed by the CIT (A). For the same reasons, we reject the objection of the Dept. against the allowance of Rs. 1,39,883. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Dept. is dismissed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 71 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ... ... ... ..... need to establish a direct connection between the taking of the loan and the payment of the taxes. He was, however, asked to give the date of application for the loan from the LIC but he was unable to answer this question. 4. From the dates given above for the amounts of taxes falling due and the date of the receipt of the loan from the LIC, it can be seen that the last two amounts were paid after the receipt of the loan from the LIC. Since the ld. Rep. of the assessee was unable to furnish any date regarding the date for the application for the loans from the LIC, we have no material to decide whether the loan from the LIC was obtained for the purpose of payment of the first two amounts of the taxes. Under the circumstances, we hold that the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80V in respect of the amounts paid by him after receipt of the loan from the LIC. The order of the CIT (A) is, therefore, set aside to that extent. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 70 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ... ... ... ..... the report of the Inspector should be taken into consideration and not his conclusion. The CIT (A) dealt in details with the report of the Inspector in para 4 of his order right from right from studio carpenter division Cloth, Projection room. Dubbing and sound Recording Room Camera Room, Lighting Room etc. and also reproduced the conclusion of he Inspector. Even if technically the contention of the ITO that only facts comprising the report of the Inspector should be taken into consideration and not his conclusion. We are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the CIT (A) and are of the view that after the facts placed by the Inspector in course of spot enquiries which are detailed in para 4 of the CIT (A) s order are looked into there could not be a conclusion otherwise than at what the CIT (A) arrived at. For the reasons stated by the CIT (A) in his order on this issue we confirm his finding for both the years. 5. In the result, the Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 69 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ... ... ... ..... r. 1972-73 himself under s. 35 shows that the basis of the imposition of penalty originally was wrong and he had proceeded on mistaken appreciation of the facts. Though it is true that the assessee has not adduced evidence by way of acknowledgement for filing of the returns for the concerned years on earlier dates, as claimed by it, the various circumstances regarding the filing of the returns for the earlier and subsequent years and other facts discussed in the order of the AAC clearly show the preponderance of probability of the assessee having filed the returns on earlier occasion, as claimed, through his tax practitioner. The assessee, it is not denied is an aged person of 80 years and had entrusted his tax matters to the tax practitioner. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that no case for the penalty has been made out by the Department on the ground that the assessee has delayed the submission of the returns without reasonable cause. 4. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 68 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ... ... ... ..... le. He, however, held that the assessee would be entitled to exemption under s. 11 of the Act subject to fulfilment of the requisite conditions. 2. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the AAC who disagreed with the view taken by the ITO that the assessee was not entitled to the relief as claimed on the ground that there was no facility for receiving the patients. However, the AAC held that since the trustees were given power to give donations to other charitable institutions, the assessee s claim under s. 10(22A) of the Act was not tenable. 3. Before us, the ld. Rep. of the assessee relied upon the various decisions referred to in para 3 of the order of my ld. brother. I agree with the reasons set out by my ld. brother in paras 4 and 5 of his order that the assessee s case was covered by s. 10(22A) of the Act. And as such, the authorities below were not justified in not granting the exemption as claimed by the assessee. 4. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 67 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ... ... ... ..... ) we hold that until finalised, the draft statement of the case prepared by the Tribunal is only a tentative order and not a final order. Therefore, we further hold that it is open to the Tribunal in these proceedings to add some more questions as questions of law to the statement of the case as well as to reject the reference application if that is found necessary. 4. We also agree with the counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal can reframe the question to bring out the real controversy but cannot perhaps refer a question which though arises out of the order of the Tribunal is not in dispute between the parties in the sense of the Applicant Commissioner has not made a grievance of it in his application for reference. This being the position in the case before us we are inclined to accept the assessee s objection and hold that no referable question of law as a matter of fact, arises out of our aforesaid order. 5. In the result, the application for reference is dismissed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 66 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ... ... ... ..... e assessee for each of the years in dispute as this requires examination and scrutiny by the WTO. We, therefore direct the WTO to examine the assessee s claim and recompute the value of the shares on basis and principles laid down by Supreme Court, as directed by us. 10. In view of our acceptance of the assessee s claim in the additional ground and as stated by the learned counsel for the assessee, the ground originally taken is only an alternative claim it does not survive for consideration if the claim of the additional ground is accepted, it is not necessary for us to decide or dispose of the contention in the original ground except to say that should it be necessary to decide this question we would uphold the claim of the assessee in the original ground also following the view taken on this point in other cases and in the orders cited by the assessee in his grounds of appeal as well as those adverted to by the CWT in his order. 11. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 65 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ... ... ... ..... ome. Shri Shah referred to CIT. vs. Prem Bhai Parekh and Ors., (1970) 77 ITR 27 (SC)and urged that there should be a proximate relationship between the assets of the assessee and earning of income. In our view, the transactions do not give rise to any such proximate relationship. The link between the assessee s funds and the assessee s assets on one hand and interest income earned by the minor son are, in our opinion, remote so as to fall out of the mischeif of s. 64. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 560 made under s. 64(1) of the IT Act. 9. The other point is disallowance of Rs. 500 out of tea expenses of Rs. 2,139 the ld. Commr. (Appeals) retained this to cover the personal expenses. 10. Before us Shri Shah stated that there were no personal expenses at all involved in this expenditure. 11. We find that nothing has been brought to indicate that there were personal expenses debited to this account. We therefore, delete this addition also. 12. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 64 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ... ... ... ..... es which can lead to such conclusion. The transactions of purchase and sale are also not so numerous as to support such conclusion. It has not been shown that the assessee made any improvement or modification in the property to make them saleable or that the assessee followed business method in purchase or sale of property. The accounts maintained by the assessee are consistent with the stand that these were investments in land and some of the investments were realised. It may also be noted that the assessee s sale of Rajpardi property was accepted as a transaction in a capital asset and not an adventure in the nature of trade. 11. Considering all the factors we hold that the Revenue has not made out any case to conclude that when the assessee sold Umarwada plot, it was either in course of assessee s business or was an adventure in the nature of trade. Hence in our view, the profit on sale of this property has to be taxed to capital gains. 12. We allow the assessee s appeal.
-
1980 (11) TMI 63 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ... ... ... ..... ee s work connected with the Narmada Tribunal Work. The amount claimed is quite modest in relation to the income earned and in our view there is no justification to disallow any part of it. No doubt, it would have been better had the assessee furnished the details but for this petty amount we do not see any justification to disallow any part of it. 7. The fact that the fees in connection with the Narmada Tribunal Work were received in subsequent year would also not be enough to repell the assessee s claim for the expenses firstly, this activity was a part of overall activities of assessee s legal profession, and secondly, the assessee was actually working on his assignment with the Narmada Tribunal and earned income, which was offered for taxe next year, in keeping with the assessee s method of accounting. 6. Considering all the facts we do not see any justification to disallow any part of the small expenses claimed at Rs. 3,483. We, delete the same. 9. The appeal is allowed
-
1980 (11) TMI 62 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ... ... ... ..... working of the report of the actuary. The ITO is directed to allow that claim. 6. It is lastly contended on behalf of the assessee that the CIT(A) erred in not granting relief under s. 80G on donation of Rs. 25,000 paid to Ajit Public Charitable Trust. This claim was not allowed by the ITO provisionally because the exemption in respect of the institution to whom donation was made was not renewed for the year under consideration. The ITO in fact has stated in the assessment order itself that the assessment will be rectified on producing necessary proof of exemption relating to the accounting year. The CIT(A) also has directed the ITO to do the needful if the exemption certificate for the year under appeal was produced before the ITO. Shri Shah stated that the assessee would take necessary steps for obtaining the exemption certificate. The claim for relief under s. 80F in the absence of such exemption certificate was not pressed. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the blending of ore whilst loading it in the ship by means of the mechanical ore-handling plant constituted manufacture or processing of ore for sale within the meaning of Section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13?
Whether the process of mining, conveying the mined ore from the mining site to the riverside, carrying it by barges to the Marmagoa harbour and then blending and loading it into the ship through the mechanical ore-handling plant constituted one integrated process of mining and manufacture or processing of ore for sale, so that the items of goods purchased for use in every phase of this integrated operation could be said to be goods purchased for use in mining and manufacturing or processing of ore for sale falling within the scope and ambit of Section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13?
Held that:- What is produced as a result of blending is commercially the same article, namely, ore, though with different specifications than the ore which is blended and hence it cannot be said that any process of manufacture is involved in blending of ore.
The process of mining comes to an end when ore is extracted from the mines, washed, screened and dressed in the dressing plant and stacked at the mining site and the goods purchased by the assessee for use in the subsequent operations could not therefore be regarded as goods purchased for use 'in mining'. The requirement of Section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13 is that the goods must be purchased for use 'in mining' and not use 'in the business of mining'. It is only the items of goods purchased by the assessee for use in the actual mining operation which are eligible for inclusion in the certificate of registration under this head and these would not include goods purchased by the assessee for use in the operations subsequent to the stacking of the ore at the mining site.
Allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the Sales Tax Officer to examine whether these 14 items of goods the machinery, vehicles, barges and other items of goods purchased by the assessee for use in carrying the mined ore from the mining site to the riverside and from the riverside to the Marmagoa harbour fall within the description of goods intended for use in processing of ore for sale within the meaning of Section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13. If any of these items of goods are purchased by the assessee as being intended for use as "machinery, plant, equipment, tools, spare parts, stores, accessories, fuel or lubricants" in carrying the mined ore from the mining site to the riverside and from the riverside to the Marmagoa harbour, they would qualify for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration.
-
1980 (11) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Preventive and punitive detentions - Evidence of Customs Officers was valid ... ... ... ... ..... the lower court in this case was pronounced on 20-4-1977, convicting the respondent first accused to rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Therefore the entire period from 23-7-1976, the date on which he was produced before the Magistrate to 24-3-1977, the date on which he was released from preventive detention, must be treated as part of the period during which the first accused-respondent was under detention as an under trial prisoner in this case as there could be no bar to preventive and punitive detentions continuing simultaneously (See observations of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. A.V. Rao, AIR 1977 S.C. 1096. So calculated, the period of 245 days plus 34 days i.e. 279 days has to be set off and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is correct in setting off this period. The revision therefore has to be dismissed. In the result, all the three appeals and the revisions are dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on A. 1 are confirmed.
-
1980 (11) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Bituminised water proof paper or bond paper - Liability to duty - Manufacture - Alternative remedy
-
1980 (11) TMI 58 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Hydrogenated rice oil not exempt - Words and phrases - 'Admixture' - Connotation of - Canons of interpretation
-
1980 (11) TMI 57 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Penalty - R.G.1 - Non-entry, no excuse ... ... ... ... ..... tion, they could have at least shown to the satisfaction of the officers that due entry has been made regarding the particular daily production in the column meant for the goods lying in the finishing room. The records do not show that the petitioners had taken any steps to satisfy the lower authorities in this behalf. Government are, therefore, unable to accept the petitioners contention that the failure to enter the previous two days production should be condoned in view of the extenuating circumstances explained by them. Government consider that any omnibus condonation of such lapses would defeat the very object of proper maintenance of R.G. 1 register. 5. As regards the petitioners plea that the penalty imposed was personal to Shri J.P. Bhargava, Government agree with the petitioners that there should be no question of recovery of penalty if the person concerned had since passed away before the recovery of the penalty. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1980 (11) TMI 56 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Electric wires and cables of short length in unstranded form ... ... ... ... ..... rade Notice requiring the manufacturers to intimate the clearance of non-excisable goods so that proper officer of Central Excise could remain present if necessary at the time of clearance. He pointed out that in this case the requirements were prescribed only in 1973 whereas this case related to a much earlier period, 19-12-1958 to 11-1-1973. He stated that in these circumstances, the petitioners could not be said to have violence any rules by clearing the scrap without sending an intimation to the proper officer of Central Excise. 3. Government see considerable force in the petitioner s contentions which have considerable weight. Government observe that the lower authorities clearly erred in (a) treating the impugned goods as Electric Aluminium Wires within the meaning of Item 33B(ii), (b) applying Rule 143 and 149 in terms of Trade Notice No. 185/69 and (c) applying Rule 50 of Central Excise Rules and Rule 10A in this case. The Revision Application is accordingly allowed.
|