|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 199 Records
-
1981 (4) TMI 180
... ...
... ... ..... counsel for the assessee that all the cases cited by the ld. Deptl. Rep. would only go to show that joint trustees must be taken as a single unit in law and not as an AOP. No where it has been stated that individual includes joint trustees and joint trustees are AOP. The joint trustees with regard to the trust property may be taken as a single unit or may come within the ambit of s. 3 of the WT Act. But individual, as pointed out by the ld. Judges of the Gujarat High Court, will not include AOP given under s. 3 of the WT Act. The dictum laid down by their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court is straight to the point. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the assessee club has been wrongly assessed to wealth-tax by the WTO. We, therefore, fully agree with the order passed by the AAC. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the AAC and the order of the AAC is, therefore, confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 177
... ...
... ... ..... essary for the ITO to issue fresh notice to the legal heir Shri Rashik Bihari Sinha for showing cause why penalties should not be imposed. Under such circumstances the service of notice on the deceased assessee was not sufficient. Of course, under s. 159 (2)(a) of the said Act any proceedings taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have taken against the legal representative and may be continued against the legal representative and from the stage at which it stood on the date of death of the deceased but it cannot mean that without issue of notice to the legal representative the penalty can be imposed against the assessee through the legal representative. We, therefore, hold that the penalty order of the ITO were not legal and valid. We, therefore, cancel the penalty orders of the ITO for all the three assessment years under appeal. The penalties, if realised, will be refunded to the assessee. 8. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed in full.
-
1981 (4) TMI 176
... ...
... ... ..... at page 36 and (1975) 98 ITR at page 343 (P and H). 7. The lower authorities have raised presumption that the estimate was untrue only on the basis that the estimate was not available and the assessee had not paid tax on the basis of estimate. Non-payment of the tax cannot be a ground to presume that the estimate was untrue. Admittedly the estimate filed by the assessee was with the Department. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that he did not retain a copy of the estimate filed. Under such circumstances no presumption can be drawn on the basis of non-filing of the advance-tax on the basis of the estimate and there are no materials to hold that the assessee had filed an estimate which he knew to be untrue or had reason to believe it to be untrue. In the absence of any material the penalty cannot be levied against the assessee on mere conjectures and surmises. We, therefore, cancel the penalty order of the ITO. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in full.
-
1981 (4) TMI 175
... ...
... ... ..... herefore, once the value has already been estimated during the asst. yr. 1974-75, there is no jurisdiction for the ITO to take up the value of the departmental valuer which was received by him after the completion of the assessment for the asst. yr. 1974-75. The departmental valuer only visited the house on 30th March, 1977 and submitted his report showing the value of the house at Rs. 1,88,100. But the house was already estimated by the ITO at Rs. 1,69,100 against which the addition of Rs. 5,000 was maintained on appeal. Under the above circumstances, the AAC was perfectly justified to delete the addition of Rs. 19,000. There was no basis for the ITO to make the addition of Rs. 19,000 for unexplained investment during the year under appeal when the construction was completed during the asst. yr. 1974-75 and the value had already been estimated by the ITO during that year. Hence, the finding of the AAC on this issue is maintained. 13. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 171
... ...
... ... ..... odd representing the new show cases, that became the assets of the assessee during the previous year, the expenditure incurred in remodelling the show cases and the rented premises cannot be considered to be capital expenditure. On behalf of the Department, reliance is placed on the order of the CIT (A). 4. We consider that the assessee is entitle to succeed in its cross objection. The date produced before us clearly show that the assessee had incurred the expenditure considered by the ITO only for the purpose of repainting the hall in the rented building and the show cases in tha hall had to be in conformity with the building put up by the assessee in rear of this hall. The assessee had only used the existing material in the old show cases for the purpose of such remodelling. It also incurred expenditure by way of painting the walls etc. These are clearly revenue expenditure. The addition of Rs. 30,000 made by the ITO is, therefore deleted. 5. The cross objection is allowed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 169
... ...
... ... ..... to have transferred this property to the partnership in the course of carrying on a business, profession or vocation. The assessees here had not carried on any business of their own. If the argument of the learned counsel should be accepted then the case of the assessees here would in fact be contrary to what is contemplated under section 5(1)(xiv). In this section what is contemplated is something that goes out of the business by way of a gift. In the case under consideration here the partnership business has received the bounty. The business that is in question has been the recipient of this gift. Under the relevant provision it is the business that should have made out the gift or bounty. We, therefore, do not agree with the assessee that the exemption under section 5(1)(xiv) is available to the assessee as the gift cannot be considered to have been made by the two assessees here in the course of carrying on a business, etc. The appeals by the two assessees are dismissed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 167
... ...
... ... ..... dit report, a copy of which was furnished to us, does not ipso-facto indicate under assessment. Under assessment can be assumed only if the audit interpretation is also accepted. The information was prominently displayed by the assessee in the computation of income from capital gains, as we have seen from the copy of the statement furnished at the time off the original assessment available to the ITO. We are satisfied that the ITO accepted the assessee rsquo s computation not by oversight but because was of the view that the interest payment, in the facts and circumstances of the assessee rsquo s case, represented the cost of the asset. It is possible that such a view may be debatable. But it cannot be said that this view was absurd or that he did not apply his mind. It is a case which gets hit by the decision of the Supreme Court in (1979)12 CTR (SC) 190 (1979) 119 ITR (SC). The order of the first appellate authority has to be upheld and the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 165
... ...
... ... ..... in ITA Nos. 885 to 887 (Chani)/79 dt. 10 Sept., 1980 and in ITA No. 1679 (Bom)/79 dt. 28th May 1980 (published in Current Tax Reporter January and February 1981 issues (1981) 20 CTR (Trib) 1 and (1981) 20 CTR (Trib) 25 receptively, the Madhya Pradesh decision overlooks the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and such law which should be taken as well established is in favour of the tax payer. We also find that the fact that there has been an agreement in this case and such agreement clearly mentions that the Karta was not only action on behalf of himself, but also on behalf of his children as their guardian, makes a difference and even on this reason the decision of the M.P. High Court will not be applicable to the assessee s case. The appeal has, therefore, to be allowed. 4. In the result, there appeal is allowed and the ITO is directed to pass an order under s. 171 recognising partial partition in respect of movable to the extent of Rs. 55,911 as claimed by the assessee.
-
1981 (4) TMI 163
... ...
... ... ..... f the Tribunal in ITA NO. 1599 (Mds) 77-78 and cross objection No. 105 (Mds) 77-78 in the case of Soft Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO dt 12th June, 1979, reported in (1979) 13 CTR (Trib) I had held that s. 40A(7) prohibited even a statutory liability from being claimed as a Intervenor is aggrieved by the Spl. Bench decision and requests us to take a view different from the said Special Bench decision. The argument of the Intervenor is that the statutory liability should be allowed as a seduction u/s. 28 of the IT Act, 1961. The Intervenor also argued that in the case of his assessee in this Deptl. appeal, a question of provision in accounts can be ignored and deduction allowed as a statutory liability u/s. 28 of the IT Act, 1961. As the point raised by the Intervenor is different from the facts and circumstances and issues involved in this Special Bench case, we are not going into the case of the Intervenor and the arguments addressed by him. 14. Departmental appeal is dismissed
-
1981 (4) TMI 161
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Gratuity Fund, Mercantile System, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... But the Madras Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Soft Beverages (P.) Lid. v. Second ITO 1982 1 SOT 311 held that section 40A(7) prohibits even statutory liability from being claimed as a deduction even if no provision is made in the accounts. The intervener is aggrieved by the Special Bench decision and requests us to take a view different from the said Special Bench decision. The argument of the intervener is that the statutory liability should be allowed as a deduction under section 28 of the Act. The intervener also argued that in the case of this assessee in this departmental appeal, the question of provision in accounts can be ignored and deduction can be allowed as a statutory liability under section 28. As the point raised by the intervener is different from the facts and circumstances and the issues involved in this Special Bench case, we are not going into the case of the intervener and the arguments addressed by him. 14. Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 158
... ...
... ... ..... o Rs. 33,372 in the view that the balance related to earlier assessment years. However, on appeal, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the deduction of the balance also. In our view, the order of the CIT is correct and must be confirmed. 8. In the case of M. Ratanchand Chordia in computing the annual value from the property for the asst. yr. 1977-78, corresponding to the previous year ended 23rd October, 1976, the assessee sought to deduct a sum of Rs. 23,380 being the tax levied by the local authority. The ITO restricted the deduction to Rs. 21,430 in the view that the balance was relatable to the earlier years. The AAC confirmed the disallowance. But, in our view, the entire tax levied was deductible. Therefore, we reverse the orders of the authorities below on this point and direct the ITO to allow the deduction of the entire amount of Rs. 23,380 in computing the income from property of this assessee. 9. In the result. Appeal No. 299/79 is dismissed and Appeal No. 457/80 is allowed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 155
Advance Tax, Interest Payable By Government ... ... ... ... ..... tax estimate voluntarily and pay advance tax thereon. Hence, the estimate in the present case filed by the assessee and the tax paid by him thereon cannot be treated as advance tax within the meaning of section 214, but can be treated only as an ordinary deposit. We say so because section 214 enjoins that the Central Government shall pay interest at 12 per cent per annum on the amount by which the aggregate sum of the advance tax instalments paid during any financial year in which they are payable under sections 207 to 213 exceeds the tax determined on regular assessment. In the present case, the so-called advance tax paid by the assessee is not payable under sections 207 to 213, including sections 210 and 212, having regard to the facts of the case narrated above. We, therefore, agree with the Commissioner that the assessee is not entitled to interest under section 214 on the voluntary payment of such so-called advance tax made by him. 6. The assessee s appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 152
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 17,000 as the market value which was found reasonable in appeal also. The land sold by the deceased, it was pointed out, was abutting Mettupalayam road and were also fertile. The ld. Rep. for the accountable person relied upon another estimate made in the Estate Duty assessment of N. Kaliappa Gounder wherein Rs. 8,500 per acre was the value fixed. Unfortunately, no details were available about the lands, the value of which were fixed at Rs. 8,500. The accountable persons, valuer fixed it at Rs. 7,000 per acre without any comparable sale in support of the value fixed. The only comparable sale refers to a sale of 2.63 acres situated right on the Mettupalayam road for Rs. 22,800 per acre. The Asstt. Controller has tried to give a comparable sale. After considering all the facts, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the value is fixed at Rs. 15,000 per acre, Relief due Rs. 16,090. 9. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed in the manner indicated above.
-
1981 (4) TMI 151
... ...
... ... ..... in the case of Chandlal Kishorilal where it was held that to while cotton in its unsigned state contains cotton seeds, by the ginning and separating the seeds, it will not be correct to say that it remains as cotton and that two distinct commercial goods are produced in the process. It has also been held in the case of Girdharialal Munnelal (1971) 27 STC 316 (MP) that ginning by a complicated process through machines converts raw cotton into marketable cotton which is a distinct commodity. The simplest test is whether in the market the ginned cotton and raw-cotton would be considered the same and the answer is in the negative, for ginned cotton is commercially different commodity from raw-cotton. Therefore, it is not correct to assume that ginning does not result in the manufacture of any article and deny the investment allowance to the assessee. We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT and restore the allowance granted by the ITO. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 150
... ...
... ... ..... he fact that S/Sri Motilal and Kanthilal were employed by him 9. The law of the point is however settled that if the assessee has not been able to prove a certain item of expenditure, penalty cannot be imposed. For the imposition of penalty the standard of evidence required is much higher. A claim of expenditure has to be disproved to be relevant and cogent evidence and mean rea has to be established. mdash Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1970) 25 STC 211 (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) Anwar Ali rsquo s case reported in 76 ITR 696 (SC). 10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that in the present case the concealment of income has not been proved. The evidence on the records merely show that the assessee rsquo s claim for salaries of two of its employees remain unsatisfactory proved. Under the circumstances the penalty is not exigible and as such all the three penalties are cancelled and the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 145
... ...
... ... ..... nt rule is not warranted . The following observations made in the abovesaid decision in paragraph 14 directly answers in appellant s favour In this view of the matter, there may be some difficulties in bringing to tax the trusts which have only agricultural income or for that matter even trusts whose non-agricultural income is very marginal and so did not file returns before the Central Authorities. This situation cannot be avoided on the plain language of s. 4(b) as it stands and in the absence of rules or procedures under the Agrl. IT Act . The above observations has been applied by us in many appeals. As indicated in para 17 of that decision no rules have been framed separately under the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is not liable to tax as admittedly, its non-agricultural income was below the taxable limit under the Central Act. 3. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The institution fees in both the appeals shall be refunded in full.
-
1981 (4) TMI 143
... ...
... ... ..... andling of gelatin for production, grease formulas, preparation and testing actual capsule production, humidity and temperature controls and adjustments, inspection equipment, storage of gelatin and finished capsules, preparation of capsules for shipment and sanitary requirements of the capsule manufacturing operations. From the above training programme it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the training programme of the engineers abroad was not for the purpose of the installation of the machinery. On the contrary, the programme of training is for the purpose of operation of the machinery, its maintenance and manufacturing techniques. In this view of the matter we hold that the authorities below were justified in not allowing the capitalisation of the above expenses for installation of the machinery for the purpose of allowing depreciation. No interference with the orders of the authorities below is, therefore, called for. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 142
... ...
... ... ..... here is escapement of income in the assessment proceedings of the asst. yr. 1971-72 on account of under statement of closing stock. The AAC simply directed the ITO to examine the possibility of initiating reassessment proceedings. After receiving the office note of the AAC, the ITO should have investigated the matter himself and should have satisfied that there was under statement of closing stock, relating to the year under appeal and that on account of that a precise amount escapement assessment in the original assessment of the assessee. No such satisfaction was gathered by the ITO. We, therefore, agree with the AAC that without having such satisfaction which is precedent condition for invoking proceedings under s. 147, the ITO was not justified in taking action under s. 147 r/w s 148. The ITO having initiated reassessment proceedings with out having reasons to believe, we hold that the reassessment was rightly annulled by the AAC. 6.In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 141
... ...
... ... ..... contradictory is that, primary argument should always be seen independent of the alternative case and the former should not be rejected only on the ground that it is highly contradictory with respect to the latter. We, therefore, set aside the order of the AAC on this issue and restore the case back to his file with a direction that firstly he will consider the primary contention of the assessee independent of the alternative case and the alternative plea of the assessee would be considered only when the primary case of the assessee is demolished by cogent reasons. A clear finding will be recorded after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties why continuation of registration cannot be granted on the basis of Form No. 12. The AAC will pass the orders for the asst. yr. 1976-77 and 1977-78 confirming to the order passed for the asst. yr. 1975-76. 9. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee will be treated to be allowed only for statistical purposes.
-
1981 (4) TMI 140
... ...
... ... ..... ld estimate the value of the shares having regard to the financial position of the Company as reflected by its balance-sheet. He will have no opportunity to find out whether the liability provided in the balance-sheet is adequate or not. He has no access to the books of the company nor can enter into a discussion with the Company rsquo s officials whether the balance-sheet reflects the true or correct state of affairs of the Company. We, therefore, hold that an outside purchaser will consider that the liability of the Company towards payment gratuity is that which appears in the balance-sheet. Since the valuation has to be made in accordance with the R. 1D and R. 1-D permits only the deduction of liabilities as depicted in the balance-sheet, there was an error apparent from record in the order of the AAC passed earlier, which error he had now corrected in his present order. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. Accordingly we dismiss the assessee rsquo s appeal.
........
|
