|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 200 Records
-
1981 (3) TMI 157 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemption application rejected by authorities ... ... ... ... ..... on merits. The other contentions which the petitioners desire to urge are also left open. It is also required to be made clear that the Affidavits-in-rejoinder were filed by the petitioners only yesterday when the hearing commenced and Shri Dhanuka requested for grant of time to file the sur-rejoinder. As the matter is being remanded back for a fresh consideration on merits, I do not think it necessary to give him any opportunity to file sur-rejoinder. 9. Shri Setalwad submitted that the Senior Enforcement Officer, who had earlier passed the order dated October 5, 1979, was not authorised to pass such an order. Shri Dhanuka on the other hand submits that the powers are delegated to him by the Textile Commissioner and he was perfectly justified in passing the order. I need not go into the controversy at this stage, as I am sure that the competent officer would pass the order as directed by this Judgment. 10. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 155 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... ) the assessee has got no right of appeal on this issue. This plea of the Deptl. Rep. also cannot be accepted on the ground that the assessee has denied the total liability of interest under ss. 139 and 217 of the Act. The assessee had come in appeal on several grounds which arose out of the assessment order made by the ITO. The charging of interest under ss. 139 and 217 is also arising from the same order. Under the above circumstances, the assessee has got right to agitate the matter which arose out of the order framed by the ITO under s. 143(3) of the Act. However, the assessee had not been allowed an opportunity to explain its stand for interest under ss. 139 and 217 of the Act. Under the above circumstances, the matter of charging interest under ss. 139 and 217 of the Act is referred back to the ITO, who should reconsider the matter after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ITO is directed to modify the assessment of the assessee and its partners.
-
1981 (3) TMI 154 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the difference in the trial balance could not be reconciled for a pretty long period and so the return could not be filed and that when the trial balance was reconciled the return was filed on 5th Aug., 1977. We hold that the lower authorities have accepted the position that due to difference in trial balance the accounts of the firm could not be finalised and so we hold that the accounts of the firm could not be finalised due to difference in trial balance and when the accounts were finalised the assessee filed the return on 5th Aug., 1977. It is not necessary that unless Form No. 6 is filed no reasonable cause can be held. The assessee can prove the existence of reasonable cause without filing Form No. 6. We, therefore, hold that the delay was due to reasonable cause. We, therefore, cancel the penalty order of the ITO. The penalty, if realised, will be refunded to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in full.
-
1981 (3) TMI 151 - ITAT NAGPUR
Deductions, Profits And Gains From Newly Established Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... essee under different circumstances, the method of granting relief is identical. Under section 80J relief has to be granted for 4 succeeding years and under section 80HH relief has to be granted for 10 succeeding years otherwise the basis is the same. The eligibility has to be determined in the initial assessment year. Therefore, in our opinion, the dictum laid down by the learned Judges of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. would apply with equal force to the facts of the present case in its claim for relief under section 80HH also. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the ITO was ill-advised in not allowing the relief to the assessee under section 80J and section 80HH and the Commissioner (Appeals) had, in our opinion, erred in confirming the orders of the ITO. 9. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) require to be reversed. They are reversed and the assessee s appeals are allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 148 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... y and not the joint family property in which the deceased also had an interest and, therefore, that Act may not modify or affect the maintenance provision as regards joint family property under the Shastric Hindu Law, also seems apparently significant. However, the issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid Madras High Court rsquo s decision and it is not open to us to distinguish it on the ground that some relevant aspects were not considered in that case. The propriety demands of us to assume that all such aspects were considered but their Lordships did not consider it worth while to refer to them in their order. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision, we hold that there is no justification for provision as regards maintenance and marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter and the widow before computing the property available for partition so as to further determine the deceased rsquo s interest in the said property. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 146 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... ified by not taking either adequate security or adequate interest or both requires examination. We therefore remit the matter back to the ITO for both the years for the limited purposes of ascertaining the same and allow the exemption or deny the same, according to his finding on fact as whether the conditions in cl.(a) of sub-s. (2) of s. 13 are satisfied or not. 5. In the result, we find that there had been no investments by the assessee within the meaning of s. 13(2) (h) of the Act in respect of the various loans mentioned by the ITO for the years under consideration or any earlier year. we find that these are moneys lend and that the ITO has to satisfy himself that such lending is not hit by the qualification mentioned under s. 13(2) (a) of the Act. we remit the matter to ITO for this purpose. The appeal for asst. yr. 1976-77 by the assessee will be treated as allowed and the departmental appeals for asst. yr. 1977-78 will be treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.
-
1981 (3) TMI 144 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Computing Value, Coparcenary Property, Family Property ... ... ... ... ..... sed own property only and not the joint family property in which the deceased also had an interest and, therefore, that the Act may not modify or affect the maintenance provisions as regards joint family property under the Shastric Hindu law, also seems apparently significant. However, the issue is squarely covered by the Madras High Court decision and it is not open to us to distinguish it on the ground that some relevant aspects were not considered in that case. The propriety demands of us to assume that all such aspects were considered but their Lordships did not consider it worthwhile to refer to them in their order. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision, we hold that there is no justification for provision as regards maintenance and marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter and the widow before computing the property available for partition so as to further determine the deceased s interest in the said property. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 142 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... y a later circular on 30th Jan., 1976 (102 ITR 90 Statutes) would justify the consideration of the assessee rsquo s claim on merits. The further fact that even the relevant year rsquo s accounts have been reopened and further provision made would also prima facie support the assessee rsquo s case. The fact that rectification was not done within the time allowed by the ITO need not stand in the way of the allowance at this stage, because the procedure required for amending disclosed accounts under the Companies Act is a special one and it necessarily takes time. As regards the quantum of the amount of development rebate, investment allowance, either past or current, would, however, go back to the ITO to be reckoned with reference to the reserves in the calendar year 1977 at the extraordinary general meeting on 15th Nov., 1980 subsequent year in the light of the Board rsquo s Circular referred to. 4. In the result, the appeal will be treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1981 (3) TMI 140 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... affect the business of its members. This centrifuged patronage to the members of the association cannot be said to be a charitable purpose. It is not in dispute before us that the Andhra Chamber of Commerce produces leaf lets and prints journals which are very informative for the entire commercial community in our country whilst the association has no such general interest . 7. The amended article of association, on which so much reliance was placed by the Id. counsel for the assessee, does not show that any of the defects mentioned by the High Court was made good. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the matter is fully covered by the decision of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and that no case is made out to depart from it. Following, therefore, with respect the earlier decision of the Tribunal, we hold that the assessee-association is not entitled to the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 137 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... le as a bad debt. Even the other argument of the assessee that it is allowable as a trading loss is well-founded notwithstanding the reliance of the learned departmental representative on the case of CIT v. Coimbatore Pictures (P.) Ltd. In that case the transaction appears to be an isolated one, unlike the present case where there were numerous such transactions. We also find that it is the custom in this line of business to pay the minimum guarantee amount as advance. The payment was contractual one and the distinction sought to be made by the learned counsel for the assessee, in our opinion, is justified. Even as found earlier, there is clear nexus between the loss to the year under consideration in view of the final decision taken during the accounting year by the assessee not to pursue for the case for recovery of the amount due. Under the circumstances, the amount is allowable in full even as a trading loss. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Relief due Rs. 25,906.
-
1981 (3) TMI 134 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... the arguments. We do find that the assessee rsquo s claim, that the firm rsquo s books were not closed for quite some time though they were expected to be closed on 30th June 1972, is not found to be incorrect. In fact, penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (a) was dropped precisely for the same reason. Penalties u/s 273 (c) have been levied on the firms. There is nothing to suggest that the assessee was individually responsible for the firm rsquo s defaults. It does appear from the facts available that the assessee was helpless in the matter as pleaded by him. There is no material either in the order of the ITO or the AAC to controvert the factual claims made on behalf of the assessee, that he was not in position anticipate to the profits. Under the circumstances, we find that the explanation of the assessee should have been accepted. In this view, the assessee rsquo s appeal will have to be allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the penalty of Rs.4,285 is cancelled.
-
1981 (3) TMI 133 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... dered the records as well as the arguments. We do find that the assessee s claim that the firms books were not closed for quite some time though they were expected to be closed on 30th June, 1972 is not found to be incorrect. In fact penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) was dropped precisely for the same reason. Penalties under s. 273(c) have been levied on the firms. There is nothing to suggest that the assessee individually responsible for the firms defaults. It does appear from the facts available that assessee was helpless in the matter as pleaded by him. There is no material either in the order of the ITO or the AAC to controvert the factual claims made on behalf of the assessee that he was not in a position to anticipate the profits. Under the circumstances we find that the explanation of the assessee should have been accepted. In this view the assessee s appeal will have to be allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the penalty of Rs. 4,285 is cancelled.
-
1981 (3) TMI 129 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... l to the interest of revenue on account of such error. So far as the Inspector s report is concerned, there is no error on the part of the WTO, as he being the superior authority to the Inspector, is not bound by the latter s report. Relying on the discussion that we have already made while considering the cases pertaining to the asst. yr. 1971-72, we hold that the orders of the WTO pertaining too the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1976-77, are not erroneous, in-so-far as, they are prejudicial to the interests of revenue. To sum up, whereas we uphold the order of the CWT for the asst. yr. 1971- 72, we quash his orders pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1976-77, as he exercised jurisdiction under s. 25(2) for these years without there being any error, which is prejudicial to the interests of revenue within the meaning of s. 25(2) of the Act, 1957. 9. In the results, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1971-72 is dismissed and the appeals for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1975-76 are allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 128 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... at any assessee has committed default envisaged by cl. (a) of s. 273. The ITO having initiated penalty proceedings under s. 273(a), r/w s. 274 in course of the re-assessment proceedings, cannot be said to have obtained satisfaction in course of proceedings pertaining to the regular assessment. The Allahabad High Court also interpreted s. 273 with regard to the default of cl. (b) in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Jagjit Kaur (1980) 126 ITR 540 (All) and held that the assessments made under s. 147(a) were not regular assessments within the meaning of s. 273(b), r/w s. 212(3) and, therefore, the levy of penalty was not valid. Taking the sematic view and relying on the said decision of the Allahabad High Court, we hold that no penalty can be levied, as the ITO initiated penal action in course of the re-assessment proceedings which are opposed to the proceedings in connection with the regular assessment, as contemplated by s. 273 of the Act, 1961. 3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 127 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... d ornaments and, therefore, the ornaments were parted by her to the assessee. The lady not having been examined by the AAC, we do not find any good reason to disbelieve her affidavit. Since the gold ornaments were parted with to the assessee by her mother, the sale proceeds could have been credited by the assessee to his account. On these brief facts, in our opinion, the AAC has unnecessarily written a very lengthy order. He seems to have been swayed by wrong considerations in the matter. If the issue is considered by a right angle, then the only conclusion to be arrived at is that the assessee clearly proved that the gold ornaments belonged to his mother and the sale proceeds of the ornaments were credited by the assessee to his account. Thus, the entry of Rs. 20,502 is fully explained. In our view, the ITO was not justified in treating the sum of Rs. 20,502, as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The addition is, therefore, deleted. 3. The appeal is allowed
-
1981 (3) TMI 126 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... So far as the legal proposition is concerned, we fully agree with this submission of Shri Chaudhary. But we are not in agreement with him that legal position was not correctly put by the Tribunal. In so may words, the Tribunal observed that Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) attracted to the case and it was for the assessee to prove that concealment was not due to fraud or gross or wilful neglect. Discussing the case threadbare, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. It is, therefore, clear that the view taken by the Tribunal was that penalty was neither sustainable under the main provision of s. 271(1)(c) nor under the Explanation thereto. Whether there was concealment or not and whether the assessee had successfully discharged is negative burden of proof ndash these are questions of fact, and from such finding of the Tribunal, we think, no question of law can arise. 4. The application is, therefore, rejected.
-
1981 (3) TMI 125 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... for imposition of penalty, we have to strictly construe limitation provided for imposition of penalty. Since the limitation provided in this case is only two years the order of penalty should have been passed within 2 years of the date of assessment order i.e. 7th, March, 1969, but unfortunately in this case it took about more than 9 years to levy of penalty, i.e., the penalty order has been passed on 22nd Sept., 1979 and more than 7 years even after the order setting aside passed by the Tribunal on 28th April, 1972. Thus, following the above authorities cited on behalf of the assessee, we do not think the IAC was justified in levying penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act. As such the penalty imposed is cancelled and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Since we have disposed of this case on the preliminary issue of limitation, we do not think any useful purpose will be served in discussing the merits of the case. 5. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 124 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ovision for imposition of penalty. we have to strictly construe limitation provided for imposition of penalty. Since the limitation provided in this case is only two years, the order of penalty should have been passed within 2 years of the date of asst order i.e. 7th March, 1969, but unfortunately in this case it took about more than 9 years to levy of penalty i.e. the penalty order has been passed on 22nd Sept., 1979 and more than 7 years even after the order setting aside passed by the Tribunal on 28th April, 1972. Thus, following the above authorities cited on behalf of the assessee, we do not think the IAC was justified in levying penalty under s. 27(1)(c) of the Act. As such the penalty imposed is cancelled and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Since we have disposed of this case on the preliminary issue of limitation, we do not think any useful purpose will be served in discussing the merits of the case. 5. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 123 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... re three to five years old cannot be said to be so high as taken by the authorities below i.e. at Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 19,000. Thus, we consider it proper to reduce the income from truck No. MPC-6520 which is 1970 model to Rs. 13,000 and MPD-6520 which is 1972 model to Rs. 15,000, subject to depreciation in both the cases. The assessee will get relief accordingly. 9. So far as the addition made in the coal account is concerned, we have seen that in the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1975-76 their results shown by the assessee in this account were accepted so much so that even 11 per cent rate was accepted which was shown in 1973-74, but during the asst. yr. under consideration the GP rate shown by the assessee after sales-tax comes to 17 per cent which is better as compared to the earlier two years. Hence, we do not think there is any case for making any addition in this account. In the result, the addition made is deleted. 10. The appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly decided.
-
1981 (3) TMI 122 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... nts of the assessee have not been rejected. The methods of accounting has also not been rejected. It has not been held by the lower authorities that it was not possible to deduce the true income from the accounts maintained by the assessee. The income has been estimated on surmises and conjectures and it is not based on any material, much less on any cogent evidence on record. The first appellate authority has specifically mentioned that the account books and the vouchers were called for by him and he has gone through them carefully, yet no defects have been pointed out by him, as such giving due consideration to the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion, and accordingly do hold, that there is no material on record to warrant or justify and estimate of income in the case of the assessee for the assessment year under appeal and the result shown by the assessee merit to be accepted. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee succeeds and is allowed.
........
|
