|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 217 Records
-
1980 (2) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... he parties and considered the matter. The assessee has explained that on account of the Managing Director and the induction of the Sales Director in the Delhi Office and his subsequent ailment on account of heart trouble, the matter of the payment of the last instalment of the advance-tax get ignored. The assessee company had already made the payment of the first two instalments and had also made the payment of the third instalment within the year as the payment was made on the last date of the financial year. We are of the view that there were extenuating circumstances to show that the default was not intentional. It cannot be such default which must be punished with the levy of a penalty. The AAC had already considered that the penalty levied by the ITO was excessive. We are of the view that no penalty is called for being levied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We accordingly cancel the penalty and allow the appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... current coins which are made generally of aluminium. These coins are not used as legal tender and on the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that they are not intended for sale, but are being preserved by the assessee rsquo s family from generation to generation as heir-looms. They have also their archaeological value. We are, therefore, of the view that collections of these coins are covered by cl. (xii) of sub-s. (1) of s.5 of the Act. This view is also supported by the commentary given at page 176 of Two Acts by C.A. Gulanikar, 1976 Edition. The fact that these coins are machine made does not, in our opinion, detract from the proposition which emerges from the fact that these are being preserved by the assessee family as collection of the art from generation to generation as heir looms and are not intended for sale and are also not legal tender. For all these reasons, we uphold the order of AAC on this point. 7. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s calculation is not disputed by the learned Departmental Representative. The only question would then arise whether there is material on record to justify the conclusion that the concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 10,000 deposited with the bank is proved. Regarding the deposit of Rs. 10,000 with the bank on 24th Aug., 1966 the assessee s submission is that this amount was borrowed from Smt. Subati Devi. This explanation has not been accepted. But there is no other material to prove that the sum of Rs. 10,000 represents the income of the assessee. The ratio of the judgment in CIT vs. Anwar Ali, 76 ITR 596(SC), therefore, squarely applies to this case. The penalty levied is, therefore, cancelled. 7. Since we are cancelling the penalty on merits it is unnecessary for us to go into the question of reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the powers of the AAC while disposing of an appeal against an order of penalty. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nnot be taken away by r. 17 followed up by the form No. 10 by the rule making authority under the Act. The High Court had held that the words in prescribed manner in s. 11(2)(a) do not confer on the rule making authority power to prescribe a time limit for making an application for exemption under this section. Therefore, paragraphs 2 and 4 in form No. 10 issued in pursuance of r. 17 of IT Rules, 1962 are ultra vires and that the rule making authority has exceeded its limit in including the said two paragraphs. We may point out that in that case even the deposit had not been made within time limit though in the instant case a major part of the deposit has already been made during the time limit. We, therefore, hold that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of s. 11(2) to the extent it had complied with s. 11(2) (b). The income accumulated to the extent of Rs. 30,073 shall not be assessed as income of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal shall be treated as allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 113 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r appeal of the of the assessee which pertains to the year 1975-76. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the interest under s. 139(8) and under s. 215 of the IT act, 1961, had not been worked out correctly in accordance with the procedure laid down in r. 119A of the IT Rules and that the interest under s. 139 (8) should have been worked out by treating the firm as registered. The assessee s objection in this regard cannot be entertained in appeal because objection against the charge of interest under s. 139(8) can be considered only if there are other grounds of appeal also. This view is supported by 117 ITR 591, 111 ITR 111, 100 ITR 603, 103 ITR 505 and 117 ITR 637. Accordingly the assessee s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 12. In the results, the two Appeal (Nos. ITA Nos. 2822/Del/78-79 and 532/Del/78-79) are dismissed while out of the two appeals of the assessee one (ITA no. 420/Del/78-79) is party allowed and the other (ITA No. 1703/Del/79) is dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 112 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... sing and levying penalty may be procedural but the authority which is competent to levy penalty cannot be a matter of mere procedure and/or of no consequence as contended for the Revenue. We, therefore, cancel the orders dt. 18th March,, 1978 passed by the IAC captioned as under s. 274(2) r/w s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 levying penalties of Rs. 1,200 and Rs. 17,000 respectively for the two years under appeal, on the ground that after the omission of the provisions of s. 274(2) w.e.f. 1st April, 1976, the IAC could not assume jurisdiction to levy penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the either of his own accord or on a reference made by the ITO to him because such assumption of power was wholly illegal. 16. Before parting, we like to observe that if we have not dealt with any authority or authorities cited by the parties or have not referred to some of the arguments, it is because these have been considered unnecessary or irrelevant to the issues before us. 17. Appeals allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 111 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ion to construct the building and held the plot as an investment. This short averment cannot establish the nature of the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade or discharge the onus of proving it so. We have seen for ourselves that both the assessees are persons of means and had acquired the plot in 1967 and there is a gap of five years from the date of its sale. The fact that they started construction, the fact that the plot was purchased for construction of a building thereon, the fact that it was held so and construction was started and the fact that there is no evidence brought on record by the Revenue to prove this transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade conclusively shows that the transaction could not be treated so. 33. Since we have already held that the assessees became the owners of the plot from 23rd July, 1967, the gains arising from the sale thereof can be treated only as long-term capital gains. We direct accordingly. 34. Appeals allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 110 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... AC and these findings of fact have not been controverted by the Revenue by bringing on record any evidence. The Revenue, therefore, has not made out any case for an interference in the order of the AAC. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and we find no justification for an interference in the order of the AAC. The AAC is apparently satisfied about the contentions made before him and when he made an order accepting those contentions, we have to take it that those contentions from the basis of his judgment. Here we find that the party to whom the camera was sold is mentioned, the number of the draft is given, the date of its receipt is recorded and the date of the cash credit is given. Since there is reasonable nexus between the sale of the camera and the cash credit appearing in the capital account, the accretion thereto has been explained. The AAC was justified in deleting the addition on account of cash credit. His order is confirmed. 6. Appeal dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 109 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
... ...
... ... ..... le point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Thus, the mistake should be such which is floating on the record and not the one on which different judicial opinions have been expressed. In fact, the assessee s case is directly covered by the judgment of the Naraindas (3) Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Moolchand where the said high Court held that Tribunal was right in the view that there was no referable question of law as s. 154 could not be invoked where conceivably there could be more than one view and, according to one view, deduction of interest paid to the HUF of which the partner is the Karta, is allowable. In short, this is not a mistake which could be rectified under s. 154 of the Act. Various High Courts have taken divergent view regarding the rectification of mistake, under such circumstances. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed. We accordingly allow the appeals filed by the Assessee. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 108 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... its between the partners, it was his intention that the share of profit should not be taken for rate purposes in the assessment of the partners and thus render s. 86(iii) otiose. He was fair enough to state that that was not the intention. Under the circumstances, it hardly matter whether the allocation is made in the body of the order of assessment of the firm itself or separately. 6. It is seen that the assessee has neither objected to the determination of the income or the tax or the statutes. It, therefore, could not have gone in appeal under s. 246(c). It is unfortunate that the AAC admitted such an appeal and relied on an article in the CTR to give a finding that the profit should not be allocated between the partners. While discussing the partnership Act he seems to have lost sight of the IT Act. The appeal as present to us departmental appeal has to be allowed. The AAC s direction regarding the allocation of profit is set aside. 7. The Departmental appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 107 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... the AAC. 9. The facts in dispute before his Lordship of the Calcutta High Court were exactly the same as are before us in the present appeal by the Revenue. We cannot add usefully anything to the above findings of his Lordship which findings have been given on exactly similar facts, as such, we do not only apply the ratio but also apply the exact decision on the facts of the assessee s case and accordingly, do uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A). 10. For completeness and caution we would like to place on record that in the face of this decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court which is exactly on the facts with which we are seized of, the case law relied upon by the ld. Deptl. Representative cannot come to the Revenue s rescue and placed as we are, as a Bench of the Tribunal, Calcutta, we do respectfully follow the said decision of the Hon ble High Court with the result, that, the appeal by the Revenue fails and is dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 106 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... he head travelling, Rs. 3,000 were disallowed by the ITO on account of personal element and though the same was not contested in appeal, the assessee claimed weighted deduction in respect of such amount of Rs. 3,000 and the CIT(A) allowed the same. The ld. authorised representative for the assessee had nothing to say in this regard except relying upon the order of the CIT(A) We feel that the action of the CIT(A) in respect of allowing weighted deduction for Rs. 3,000 on account of travelling is incapable of being sustained. Once the said amount of Rs. 3,000 is disallowed on the basis of being of personal nature, and the same being not contested in appeal, the claim of the assessee pertaining to weighted deduction in respect of such an amount should not have been accepted by the CIT(A). The action of the CIT(A) therefore granting weighted deduction in respect of Rs. 3,000 on account of travelling is therefore reversed. 5. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 105 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee trust is advancement of any other object of general public utility so much so that in case it is found that such an object involved an activity for profit, the assessee would not be entitled to exemption under s.11. However, we find that the share from the partnership firm Manilal and Co. Which the assessee trust enjoys as a partner has no connection direct with the objects of the assessee trust as such. Therefore, even though the assessee trust can be said to carry on business, the business is held as a property by the assessee trust, the profits of which are utilised for its objects which are admittedly of charitable nature. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Supreme Court s decision in the case of CIT vs. Dharmodayam and co. 1977 CTR (SC) 341 (1977) 109 ITR 527 (SC) squarely applies to the facts of the case. In the premises, the ITO is directed to treat the income of the assessee trust as exempt under s11. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 104 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee trust is advancement of any other object of general public utility so much so that in case it is found that such an object involved an activity for profit, the assessee would not be entitled to exemption under s.11. However, we find that the share from the partnership firm Manilal and Co. Which the assessee trust enjoys as a partner has no connection direct with the objects of the assessee trust as such. Therefore, even though the assessee trust can be said to carry on business, the business is held as a property by the assessee trust, the profits of which are utilised for its objects which are admittedly of charitable nature. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Supreme Court s decision in the case of CIT vs. Dharmodayam and co. 1977 CTR (SC) 341 (1977) 109 ITR 527 (SC) squarely applies to the facts of the case. In the premises, the ITO is directed to treat the income of the assessee trust as exempt under s11. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 103 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... or more and is different from money in a current account wherein normally there is no restriction of withdrawal either as to amount or as to time. Though it is true that according to the meaning of deposit in the explanation to s. 40A(8) it includes money borrowed, in the present case there is no borrowal by the assessee company from the directors or other concerned persons for any purpose and that the amounts lying to the credits of the respect persons were for their use as and when needed in a current account. In other words, the company being a private limited company has offered the formalities of a current account in a bank. In the circumstances, it does appear to us that the provisions of s. 40A(8) are not aimed to payment of interest to such private accounts of a purely domestic nature. We, therefore, hold that the Commr. was not justified in directing disallowance of interest under s. 40A(8). The order of the Commr. is, therefore, set aside. 5. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 102 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... nt of penalty prescribed under s. 271(1)(a)(i) as it stood at the relevant time. Thus there is no authority or precedent in support of the contention of the Department. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sathe, learned counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice that Benches of the Tribunal in Bombay have on more than one occasion decided the point against the Revenue. It is following these orders of the Tribunal that the AAC decided the point against the Revenue. We do not see any valid reason for taking a different view in the instant case. 5. Incidently, Shri Sathe advanced yet another argument in support of the orders of the AAC involving the interpretation of the language of s. 271(1)(a)(i), but since for the reasons stated above, the departmental appeals must fail, we do not find it necessary to express an opinion on the said limb of his argument. 6. No other point was raised or pressed before us at the time of the hearing of these appeals. 7. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 101 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... urt, but if the appeal is a nullity such as when it is preferred by his pleader after his death, then any order made in that appeal is equally a nullity. The appeal thus being nullity, an order for substitution of a legal representative in place of the deceased appellate cannot be made. 3. Relying on these authorities, Shri Sood argues that appeals having been filed against the deceased, Shri Sohan Lal by the ITO are incompetent and invalid. From the authorities of the Indore Bench of Madhya Bharat High Court and the Bombay High Court it is clear that an appeal instituted against a dead person is a nullity. We, therefore, fully agree with Shri Sood that the appeals being a nullity deserve to be dismissed. The Revenue cannot be permitted now to bring the heirs of the deceased on record. An appeal which is a nullity from inception cannot be heard by the Tribunal and no opportunity can be given to the Revenue to cure the defect. 4. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 100 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... its accounts all along. It is true that the assessments were made under s. 143(1), but nevertheless the fact remain that the trading results of the assessee were accepted by the Department and this year merely because the profits have gone down slightly, rejection of the accounts would not be justified more particularly when the turnover of the assessee has gone up very considerably from about Rs. 9 lacs to Rs. 16,48,000 approximately. In the immediately following asst. yr., the profits of the assessee have again shown an upward trend and have been declared to be 7.4 per cent. All this shows that the assessee has been truthfully declaring its trading results and as such it would not be proper to reject the assessee s accounts in the year under consideration on no sounder grounds than that the gross profit rate is slightly lower this year than it was in the earlier year or than it has been in the later year. Accordingly, the addition made is deleted. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 99 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... because in the ice account of the assessee no quantity account was maintained. The AAC confirmed this addition and there is no further appeal from the decisions of the AAC on this point. Out of the expenses of Rs. 3,584 incurred by the assessee for tea, soda, fanta, etc., the ITO disallowed half the amount i.e. Rs. 1,792 on estimated basis as expenditure for non-business purpose. The ITO disallowed the other half as entertainment expenses under s. 37(2B) of the IT Act. The AAC restricted the disallowance on account of personal element to Rs. 500 only. 7. In our view, the AAC rightly restricted the disallowance to Rs. 500 only. No material is placed before us which would show that the expenses were lavish or extravagant. The disallowance of half the amount for personal and non-business purpose was on the high side and the disallowance of Rs. 500 would appear as entertainment expenses was completely unjustified. The appeal on this ground also fails. 8. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation (Customs) - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... on 14 which speaks of the seller and the buyer (and not the principal and agent) having an interest in the business of each other. 23. Mr. Dalal finally urged that the price was not the sole consideration because the U.K. Company has charged its commission. There is also no merit in this contention. The very fact that the U.K. Company charged its commission to the petitioner-Company itself discloses the nature of the relationship between the U.K. Company and the petitioner-Company, viz. that of agent and principal. It has never been even the Department s case that the price was not the sole consideration between the sellers in those two contracts and the petitioner-Company or the U.K. Company. In the facts of this case, the question of price being or not being the sole consideration between the U.K. Company and the petitioner-Company does not even arise. 24. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
............
|
