|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 92 Records
-
1980 (6) TMI 74 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ible to prove the source of Rs. 10,000. The fact that loans were given to Sri. Raja Ram and Desraj stands accepted. It was for these parties to explain to the ITO as to how and from what source each paid Rs. 5,000. Explanation was duly given. The fact that the money was returned was accepted. The source out of which it was paid was also stated. We do not see how it could be said that whatever these persons had stated before the ITO was a mere story. Further, these parties had no intimate connection or relationship with the assessee. We are inclined to hold in these circumstances that the assessee had explained the source of Rs. 10,000 and even if the explanation given by Shri Raja Ram and Sri Des Raj with regard to the source out of which Rs. 10,000 was paid was not free from suspicion, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. We direct that the addition of Rs. 10,000 be deleted. 6. In the result ITA No. 1763 succeeds partially and ITA No. 490 succeeds fully.
-
1980 (6) TMI 73 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... d. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the major portion of expenses were for the employees of the concern and the other expenses were also small customary expenses and no lavish entertainment was involved. He relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Karuppuswamy Nadar and Sons.(1) 2. We have considered the facts and we are of the view that the CIT (A) rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. The expenses claimed by the assessee were not at all in the nature of entertainment expenses. The order of CIT (A) is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 72 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... nder s. 185(1)(b). The contention of the authorised representative for the assessee that none of the partners of the assessee-firm were put to examination by the ITO while coming to the conclusion that the assessee is a branch of M/s. Prabhat Chemicals is not without force. Just on the basis of suspicion arising out of close relationship of the partners in the two firms, the Revenue cannot be permitted to give a finding as given by the ITO and confirmed by the CIT (A). The assessee by no stretch of imagination could be treated as a branch of M/s. Prabhat Chemicals and its claim of a separate and independent entity of business and registration under s. 185(1)(b) is in order and the finding of the CIT (A) on this issue is reversed. 11. For the same reasons as discussed above in respect of s. 185(1)(b) proceedings, the assessee s contention raised in its appeal No. 112 is also accepted. 12. In the result, both the assessee s appeals are accepted and stay application is rejected.
-
1980 (6) TMI 71 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... e Court decision is extracted and placed in the following words To hold otherwise would put a premium upon a technicality which we do not see will advance the case either for the collection of the tax or for the administration of justice . In the instant case the last date of the accounting year was 23rd Dec., 1972 and deed of partnership was executed on that very date and the application in Form 11A which was required to be filed by the end of the previous year was filed on 9th Jan., 1974, though after the previous year but much before the assessment in the said case was framed and that as per the facts and circumstances of the case explained above, any delay in case like this was warranted for condonation. 6. The contention of the assessee is, therefore, accepted and order of both the lower authorities under s. 185(1)(b) not allowing registration are reversed and ITO is directed to grant registration to the assessee-firm. 7. In the result, the assessee s appeal is accepted.
-
1980 (6) TMI 70 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... njab and Haryana High Court in Chhat Mull Aggarwal vs. CIT(1) relied on for the assessee, that it cannot be held as a matter of law that the remedy of appeal provided by the provisions s. 246(1)(c) of the Act cannot be availed of by the assessee, if a matter is decided on concession. Their Lordships have, therefore, held that the admission made in such a case is not binding and the IT authority concerned is bound to decide the appeal on its merits. In the present case it appears that the AAC was under a misapprehension of fact that the counsel had made an admission in view of the affidavit filed by the counsel and denial by the assessee itself. In the circumstances, it is, in our opinion, a fit case in which the appeal, should have been decided by the AAC on merits. 3. In the result, therefore, we set-aside the orders of the AAC and restore the appeals to his file for a decision on merits in accordance with law. The appeals shall stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1980 (6) TMI 69 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... of the appellant, though in the bills the name of the appellant was shown, there was no guarantee that the appellant purchased goods and consumed. The purchases might have been for accommodating others (d) the turnover involved was negligible which was alleged to have been omitted. In view of these circumstances, the learned Chartered Accountant has pleaded that the penalty levied was onerous. We have discussed the law and the facts for the relevant asst. yr. 1972-73 at some length and we have come to the ultimate conclusion that the facts and circumstances of the case would not justify the levy of penalty. It is needless to repeat the reasons for the relevant asst. yr. 1973-74. For the detailed reasons set out in the earlier portion of this order for the asst. yr. 1972-73, we see no justification for the levy of penalty. We, therefore, quash the order of penalty and direct the ITO to refund the amount, if collected from the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 68 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... cessional levy thereof, the assessee has to obtain the status of registered firm for which the assessee has to fulfil certain conditions, and on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee s case in appeal before us, we are of the opinion and do hold that the assessee was a firm during the assessment year under appeal and accordingly we do uphold the directions of the AAC (with modifications as under), whereby he has directed the ITO to dispose of the application filed by the assessee in statutory Form No. 11 treating the same as fresh application for fresh registration. 7. Since the assessee has complied with all the requisites as are provided for under statutory r. 22 of the IT Rules, 1962, r/w s. 185 of the Act, the ITO is directed to make a formal order granting the assessee the status of registered firm for the assessment year under appeal. 8. In the result, the order of the AAC stands modified to the above extent an appeal by the assessee succeeds and is allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 67 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... pt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee. Apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee, the Department must have before it, before levying penalty cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that the assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the same and that the disputed amount is a revenue receipt. No doubt, the original assessment proceedings for computing the tax may be a good item of evidence in the penalty proceedings but penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment (1972) CTR (SC) 295 (1972) (83) ITR 369 SC. On the above score also, we cannot sustain the impugned order. 13. In the result of our foregoing discussion, the impugned order levying penalty on the assessee stands cancelled, the assessee succeeds, with the result that the appeal by the assessee stands allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 66 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... he stated facts and in the circumstances of the cases in appeal before us, we are of the opinion and do hold that there is/was no evidence of any information subsequently coming into possession of the ITO under s. 147(b) of the Act and, accordingly, s. 147(b) of the Act was not attracted. There was no material with the ITO to base any lsquo reason to believe rsquo within the meaning of s. 147(b) of the Act, hence the re-opening of the assessments, the notices under s. 148 of the Act and the reassessments proceeding together with the impugned orders of the ITO and the CIT (Appeals) as these relate to the subject-matter at issue before us in the present appeals, are not tenable and are quashed. 34. In view of our having held that re-opening of the cases under s. 147(b) of the Act, was not warranted by the facts of the cases, other grounds taken by the assessee become redundant and of mere academic interest. 35. In the result, the appeals by the assessee succeed and are allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 65 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... e, and, exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act was available to her from the immovable properties assessed as assets. This fact could have been got verified by the WTO through local enquiries, but he has not done so, which seemingly has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. 31. All the above facts speak of the infirmities attached to the assessments framed in the case of the assessee, and, accordingly, the assessment orders certainly fail to conform to the minimum requirements of natural justice and the best judgment assessment. The assessments made for all the assessment years under appeal are quashed, the impugned order of the AAC which is a common consolidated one for all the assessment years under appeal is set aside. The cases are restored to the file of the WTO for taking fresh assessments accordingly to law and in the light of our observations as above. 32. In the result, for statistical purposes, all the appeals by the assessee shall be taken to have been allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 64 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the department, it is for the assessee to show that he has reasonable cause for default to file return within time. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee s case in appeal before us, we are of the opinion and do hold, of course, respectfully and usefully following the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Smt. Indu Barua, that the Department has failed to establish prima facie by producing some evidence that the assessee is liable for payment of penalty for default to file return within time by conscious disregard of the provisions of law and the department has also failed to discharge the onus which lay on the department to prove the above facts. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities levying and sustaining penalty on the assessee for the assessment year under appeal cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the penalty levied upon the assessee is cancelled and the appeal by the assessee succeeds and is allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 63 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... nation offered by the assessee is untenable and that the orders of the lower authorities are therefore sustainable. 4. We have considered the submissions on either side and the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the view that the penalty levied in this case is wholly unjustifiable. The assessee was not assessed during the immediately preceding three years as his wealth was below the taxable limit. Even in the asst. yr. 1969-70 the taxable wealth is marginal and the same has been computed on the estimation of the value of the immovable property based on the valuer s report for a subsequent year. In these circumstances, it is only justifiable to hold that the assessee has proceeded on a genuine belief that for the assessment year under consideration he was not bound to file the return. The explanation offered by the assessee should have been considered in the correct perspective rather than on technical points. We accordingly allow the appeal and cancel the penalty.
-
1980 (6) TMI 62 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... made. The said contention was accepted by the Commissioner on strength of Ramkrishanshingh and Sons vs. CIT(1), Addl. CIT vs. Vinayak Cinema(2), CIT vs. Kunj Behari Shyamlal(3), and Badri Narani Kashi Prasad vs. Addl. CIT.(4) 4. Department is aggrieved from the said finding. Assessment in this case was made within the local jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court. That being the position, we are bound to follow the view of that High Court. In Badri Narain Kashi Prasad(4). (FB) it was laid down that s. 187(1) enabled the Department to make assessment on the reconstituted firm where there was within the opening of s. 187(1) a change in the constitution of the firm. But that the said provision did not warrant making of composite assessment on the newly constituted firm so as to cover also the income relating to a period prior to such change in the constitution of the firm. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the Commissioner s finding. Department fails. 5. Appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 61 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... arshad Jain is not practising on the income-tax side he was not aware of the limitation of filing the application or registration and the delay in this case took place because of the advice received from the Advocate. The fact, that no expenditure for drafting of the dissolution deed and the partnership deed from the partners of the firm was charged is explained to the reason that he is a relation of the two partners, and, therefore, Jai Parshad Jain did not charge them for the service rendered. On the facts of this case we would hold that there was a sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from making the application for registration before the end of the previous year. The delay in filing the application for registration is, therefore, condoned. Having condon the delay we would direct the ITO to pass an order under s. 185 after satisfying himself about genuineness of the firm. 5. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal shall be deemed to have been allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... that the AAC was right in accepting the assessee s contention regarding the determination of the ALV for the self-occupied property at Rs. 6,000 when the ITO had accepted in the assessment order Rs. 12,000 as fair and reasonable ALV for the 3/4th portion of the property in the occupation of the assessee s father, the ALV of Rs. 6,000 for the 1/4th portion in self occupation of the assessee as declared in his return cannot be considered to be either unreasonable or low, particularly when the assessee may be entitled to the benefit of s. 23(3)(b) of Act, though he does not seem to have made any such claim in his return. The reference to s. 23(3)(b) seems to have been made before the AAC only to justify the reasonableness of the SOP income of Rs. 6,000 declared by the assessee. We are therefore, unable to interfere with the order of the AAC directing the ITO to accept the income for SOP at Rs. 6,000 instead of Rs. 22,360 computed by him. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1980 (6) TMI 59 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the deletion of Rs. 2,42,000. While doing so, we also agree with the observations of the ld. Commissioner in para 4.4. 11. The third issue is regarding the treatment of the assessee as an industrial company. We have already detailed with the case law on which the ld. CIT relied on with which we fully agree. As the building operation is a manufacturing process as defined in s. 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1975, we find nothing to disagree with the finding of the ld. CIT as reproduced above. We see no reason to interfere with his order. 12. Appeal dismissed. 13. Since we have dismissed the Revenue s appeal, the ground 1(a),(b) and (c) taken by the assessee in the cross objection stand allowed. As regards ground No. 2 of the cross objection, as we do not agree with the contention of the assessee and consider the finding of the Commissioner on this issue as correct, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A). The cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 58 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... one in favour of the tax payer has to be preferred in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. (8). Therefore, we would prefer to follow the decision of the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts and agree with the AAC that no gift was involved on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 7. We are also inclined to accept the alternative submission of the assessee that assuming that there was a gift, the same was exempt under s. 5(1)(xiv) of the Act. The reason is that it is evident from the facts discussed above that the gift was made bona fide in the course of carrying on the business and for purposes of the business because the assessee was old and in view of his failing health needed a person to look after the business of the firm and entrust him with the responsibilities which he himself could not perform. Therefore, on this ground also, no gift-tax would be charged in this case. 8. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 57 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ctfully following these orders of the Tribunal with which we agree we hold that the order of the CIT (A) is wrong. 7. We accordingly cancel the order and direct the ITO that only 1/3rd share of the profits out of 50 per cent share income in the firm shall be included in the total income of the assessee. 8. The only other ground is regarding the levy of interest under s.139 and 217 (1)(a) amounting to Rs. 2,25,330 and Rs. 7,44,249 respectively. This ground has not been considered and decided by the CIT (A) because he had set aside the assessment and restored it to the ITO. In view of our aforesaid direction, the assessee would be entitled to appropriate relief in the interest levied both under s. 139 and 217(1)(a). However, the ground raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal before the CIT (A) will have to be rejected in view of the latest Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Geeta Ram Kali Ram (1). 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 56 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... to the concerned parties not to avail of the services of the assessee and go to other chartered Accountants. That is no doubt a theoretical possibility. But we must have regard to the realities of the situation. Those parties had entrusted their matters to the firm knowing that the partners were the assessee and Shri. Sankara Panicker. On the dissolution of the firm their cases have been allotted to the assessee. It is very unlikely that they would immediately leave the assessee and go to other chartered accountants. In these circumstances the fact that the assessee was allotted certain files which would fetch an income of Rs. 55,000 per year could be taken as sufficient consideration for his giving up his share of the goodwill. 8. In the result, we hold that there is no gift involved in the transaction by which the firm was dissolved and that no gift, either express or implied, had been made by the assessee. Therefore, the assessment is set aside. 9. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 55 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... that the business had no goodwill. That contention was rejected on appeal by the Appl. Contr. also. But he directed that goodwill should be computed after deducting interest at 15 per cent on the average capital and the managerial remuneration at Rs. 1,500 per month. It was pointed out by the Deptl. Rep. that according to the directions given by the Appl. Contr. The result would be a minus figure. 13. The assessee s authorised representative faintly contended before us that the firm had no goodwill. We cannot accept the above contention. Considering the fact that the firm had been carrying on business in stationery goods for a long time it should have necessarily acquired some goodwill. 14. The next question is as regards the valuation of goodwill. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we think that the value of the share of the deceased in the goodwill of the firm could be taken as Rs. 3000. We direct accordingly. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
|
