|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 110 Records
-
1981 (6) TMI 50 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... at on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have held that only 50 per cent of the expenditure incurred on rent, electricity and stationery are entitled for weighted deduction under s. 35B. 13. Shri Srinivasan ld. Deptl. Rep., contends that in view of the decision in the case of J. Hemchand and Co. weighted deduction has to be allowed to the assessee at the rate of 50 per cent on the expenditure incurred on rent, electricity and stationery. 14. On the other hand, Shri Patil contends that the allowance sustained by the CIT(A) is not more than 50 per cent as contended by the ld. Deptl. Rep. 15. Therefore, in this situation of the matter, we hold that the Revenue is to fail on this ground also as the CIT(A) has allowed weighted deduction on the items of expenditure on rent, electricity and stationery in accordance with the decision in the case of J. Hemchand and Co. Hence, we confirm his order on the issue. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 49 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... rs to manufacture or production of the articles, it contemplates that the articles which are produced or manufactured are something new and different from the raw materials or the things which are used for the purpose of production of those articles. It appears to us that the above observation was made with reference to the particular facts of that case. It appears doubtful, whether it was intended to be laid down that there can be no manufacture at all unless there is a total change in the end-product, in the sense that a totally new article should come into existence. The question whether a process like the present one would amount to manufacture or not was not adverted to in that case. Although the observation referred to above creates some doubt in the matter, in the light of the two other rulings referred to above, we decide that matter in favour of the assessee and hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80J(1). 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 48 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Business, Adventure In The Nature Of Trade ... ... ... ... ..... se of Ukhara Estate Zamindaries Ltd. that neither the existence of the power in the Memorandum to trade in land nor the declaration of dividend is decisive of the question whether the assessee traded in land what is of importance is the manner in which the assessee dealt with the assets and the real nature of the operation pertaining to them and the objects with which the operations were done. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case before us, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) was quite correct in his decision and so, we uphold the same. 11 to 13. These paras have not been printed here as they deal with a minor ground having no bearing on the main issue covered in the synopsis. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Per Shri P.S. Dhillon --- I fully agree with the conclusion and reasons of my learned brother Shri Rotho on the issue of deletion of a sum of Rs. 59,609 but on the issue of sale of land referred above, I merely agree with his conclusion.
-
1981 (6) TMI 47 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... considered by the AAC. Considering the probabilities of the case I would accept the claim in view of the details of property income received by the assessee since he inherited the property from his grand-father sometime in May, 1974. As regards the old materials also I find that on the broad probabilities of the case the version of the assessee could be accepted. The cost of construction at Rs. 95,000 has been accepted. The existence of an old building, which was demolished, has been at least accepted partly by the ITO. It is no doubt true that the assessee has no evidence but in matters of this type one has to go by the broad probabilities of the case. Considering the fact that the cost of construction has been substantially accepted, there is no reason to disbelieve the assessee in respect of a sum of Rs. 7,000 only. I, therefore, accept the claim of the assessee in this behalf as well. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the total income is reduced by Rs. 12,000.
-
1981 (6) TMI 46 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... nal returns for the two years and according to him, the assessee deliberately with-held the amounts under consideration for the two assessment years with a view to conceal the wealth. This submission of the Deptl. Rep. was not based on any material or any sound reasoning and it was orally suggested that the assessee could not forget these items. Our reading of the situation is already given above and we do not find anything improbable or impossible about the omission made. The Deptl. Rep. also sought to say that Expln. to s. 18(1)(c) may be attracted in this case. Even that Explanation, if it is assumed to be applicable, cannot rope in a case of bona fide omission. We have already held that this is a case of bona fide omission and not detection by the WTO prior to the filing of the revised returns by the assessee. Consequently, we delete the penalties sustained by the CWT(A) for both the assessment years and allow the appeals of the assessee. 4. Both the appeals are allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 45 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... imed the expenses on travelling and other heads on an estimate. The assessee put that percentage at 40 per cent. The ITO considered 30 per cent to be reasonable and the AAC 35 per cent. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. I have heard the rival submissions. The territory in which the assessee was to canvas business is indeed vast. A rough estimate to expenses was filed before the AAC as well as before me. It was also pointed out that for the subsequent two years, the assessee had claimed deductions at the rate of 40 per cent and his returns have been accepted under s. 143(1) of the IT Act. The Dispute now hinges on a small amount of Rs. 1,412. considering the circumstances of this cases and the facts mentioned earlier. I am inclined to accept the assessee s claim and hold that estimate of expenditure at 40 per cent of the commission income is quite reasonable. The ITO is directed to accept the claim and recompute the assessee s income. 3. The appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 44 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... no observations whatsoever on merits excepting stating that either the Special Leave Petition is admitted or it is dismissed. To say, therefore, that by implication the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Madho Prasad s case has been overruled by their Lordships of the Hon ble Supreme Court because they have refused Special Leave Petition to the Department in the case of S. Sankaraiah 1978 CTR (AP) 24 (1978) 113 ITR 313 would, in our opinion, be entirely inappropriate. We, therefore, refuse to accept the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, despite the great pains and persuasiveness displayed by him to canvass his view point. 11. According to us, the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Madho Prasad s case 1976 CTR (All) 334 (1978) 112 ITR 492 is still the good law so far as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned and, therefore, respectfully following the same, we uphold the orders of the ld. AAC. 12. In the result, the appeals fail.
-
1981 (6) TMI 43 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... hall be minimum period of seven years ending March next after 7 years period from the date of commencement of supply and from year to year thereafter, determinable by a three calendar months notice on either side expiring at the end of the said minimum period of seven years or at the end of any such notice. This agreement shall determine, but without prejudice to the rights and liabilities of the parties in respect of any matter antecedent to such determination. 7. This clause shows that the agreement itself was not of enduring nature or even of a long term nature. That being the position, it cannot be said that the purpose of installation of the material brought from the aforesaid firms was of an enduring nature. Therefore, even if the test, i.e., expenditure of enduring nature , was to be held applicable in this case that test is not satisfied. Therefore, the expenditure incurred in this case cannot be said to be of capital nature. 8. In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1981 (6) TMI 42 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Deduction Of Tax At Source, Payment To Non-Residents ... ... ... ... ..... t payment mentioned in the ITO s letter dated 1-3-1979 of DM 81,736 remitted the tax to be paid would not be DM 54,490 on the grossed amount of DM 1,36,227 but something different. The ultimate liability to tax would be Remittance DM 81,736 Tax (assuming it to be 40 per cent---this is not the rate at which tax at source is to be deducted but the rate at which the non-resident is to be taxed) at 40 per cent 32,596 (sic) DM Tax on DM 32,596 at 40 per cent 13,040 Tax on DM 13,040 at 40 per cent 5,216 Tax on DM 5,216 at 40 per cent 2,088 Tax on DM 2,088 at 40 per cent 836 Tax on DM 836 at 40 per cent 336 Tax on DM 336 at 40 per cent 136 Tax on DM 136 at 40 per cent 56 Tax on DM 56 at 40 per cent 24 Tax on DM 24 at 40 per cent 12 Tax on DM 12 at 40 per cent 8 --------------- 54,348 --------------- The above is only illustrative to indicate that the method adopted by the ITO for grossing up requires reconsideration. 26. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Promissory Estoppel - Interpretation ... ... ... ... ..... icular purpose. It was a notification issued in public interest and again withdrawn in the same public interest. So far as the decision in M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. - A.L.R. 1979 S.C. 621 is concerned, the relevant facts there are totally different. There was a good amount of correspondence between the State and the petitioners therein, and a clear promise was made that for a particular number of initial years, the industry will be exempted from sales-tax. But, when the State sought to levy the sales-tax, it was held by the Supreme Court that, in view of the categorical representation made by the State to the petitioners therein, it was precluded from doing so and that, it was bound to exempt the petitioners from the provisions of the Sales-tax Act, in accordance with the representation made by it. 7. For the above reasons, the writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed but, having regard to the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Job work - Twisting of materials - Words and phrases ... ... ... ... ..... e First Schedule of the Act, has come into existence. 10. The other contention of Mr. K.N. Balasubramanian that the notification is confined only in respect of instances where a single article undergoes job work, cannot be acceded to, because what was contemplated under the notification was to exempt goods falling under Tariff Item No. 68, manufactured in a factory as a job work, and an article would not limit it to instances wherein a single article alone is handed over for job work, but would also include instances where more than one article is supplied by the supplier. The ordinary rule of construction is where singular is used, it will also include plural unless otherwise specifically stated. Therefore for the reasons above stated, the petitioner, who carries out only a conversion job and nothing more would be entitled to avail of the exemption contemplated under the notification. Hence as prayed for, a writ of mandamus would issue. Rule Nisi is made absolute. No costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 39 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Cotton and Silk fabrics - Processing of ... ... ... ... ..... nded only in those cases where a manufacturer undertakes the process of calandering alone and that since in the present case the fabric had initially undergone other processes, the notification would not be applicable. 3. Government find considerable force in the petitioners contention that a plain reading of the Notification No. 175/72, dated 20-4-1972 and Notification No. 97/73, dated 16-3-1973 would indicate that the duty paid fabrics received by the petitioners factory and cleared after the processing of calandering are exempt from payment of any further duty. There is no basis for the interpretation placed on the notification by the Asstt. Collector and the Appellate Collector that the conncession under the notification is not applicable in this case because the fabrics has initially undergone other processes apart from calandering. Government accordingly accept the petitioners contention and allow the revision application with consequential benefits to the petitioners.
-
1981 (6) TMI 38 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Short levy - Rule 10 or 10A ... ... ... ... ..... were going to be sold by the dealer for whom the goods were processed. This fact should also have been known to the officers who made the assessments. It was therefore open to the proper officer to make the assessment on provisional basis, if he so thought fit at the time of clearances pending availability of information regarding the actual sale price of the goods. It could not therefore be said that there was deliberate suppression of information by the processor in this case at the time of clearance of goods so as to attract Rule 10A. Government therefore hold that the demand as such is clearly hit by time bar. 4. The revision application is accordingly allowed with consequential relief to the applicants.
-
1981 (6) TMI 37 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Zip fasteners and snap fasteners are embellishments for Footwear - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... by Entry 12 by accepting buckles as an embellishment for footwear, Govt. consider, having regard to the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hansraj Gordhandas 1978 ELT (J 350)(AIR 1970 SC 755) regarding interpretation of notifications under taxation statutes, that the benefit which was available to buckles could not, on a strict legal interpretation of the aforesaid entry, be denied to zip fasteners and snap fasteners, by taking the aid of any supposed intendment behind any notification. Govt. note that even if there was any intendment not to extend any concessional rate of duty to zip fasteners and snap fasteners, that intendment was not properly built into the notification and that perhaps explains why this entry was subsequently deleted by amending Notification No. 10/Cus. 81. 5. In view of the above, Govt. consider that it is not a fit case for reviewing the impugned orders-in-appeal which are sustainable in law and, therefore, drop the review proceedings.
-
1981 (6) TMI 36 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Tools - Wrenches - Liability to duty ... ... ... ... ..... ench in question according to the petitioners works as a lever to rotate the taper plug through 90 degree for the purposes of sealing or opening the pipelines. After seeing the relevant literature and some specimen of the impugned goods produced by the petitioners at the time of personal hearing, Government consider that the impugned instrument which has been described by the petitioners themselves in their literature and pamphlet as a wrench is nothing but a wrench not only from the point of view of trade parlance but also from the point of view its function. As such it could not be said that the lower authorities have in any way gone wrong in classifying the said wrench under item 51A (i) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the purposes of levy of Central Excise duty. 4. In view of the above, the Government of India find no reason to interfere with the order-in-appeal which is correct in law. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1981 (6) TMI 35 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Determination of assessable value ... ... ... ... ..... subsequent to the period covered by the revision application they adopted a different practice and started showing the sale price for one dozen as the price of 13 pieces and this was accepted by the department. It is their contention that merely because they prepared the invoice in a different manner for the material period they should not be denied the discount because by supplying 13 pieces for the price of one dozen they were virtually giving a discount to the customers and this is what they claimed in the price-list. 3. Government observe that in effect there is nothing to distinguish the pattern of pricing adopted by the petitioners during the period covered by the revision application and that adopted for the subsequent periods. Mere change in the form of declaration and invoices should not make any material difference to the assessable value. Government, therefore, accept the petitioners contention and set aside the order in appeal and allow the revision application.
-
1981 (6) TMI 34 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Sales made to sole distributors at arms’ length - Effect of Common directors ... ... ... ... ..... rs have also relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Hind Lamp Ltd. - 1977 E.L.T. (J 53) wherein the Court has held that there was no warrant for not accepting the sale price to the sole distributor as the basis of assessment provided such sales were at arms, length. 4. Government observe that there is no evidence on record to show that the sales of the impugned goods to M/s. South India Export Corporation were not at arms, length and merely because one of the Directors of both the firms was common it could not be held that the sales made by the petitioners to the sole distributor were not on principal to principal basis. In the circumstances of the case Government held that the petitioner s selling price to M/s. South India Export Corporation should rightly form the basis of determining the assessable value of the impugned goods. 5. In view of the above, Government of India set aside the impugned order in appeal and allow the revision application.
-
1981 (6) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation - Refund - Applicability of limitation Act - Precedents - Illegal duty - Obiter dictum - Validity
-
1981 (6) TMI 32 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the light of the aforesaid discussion above, one may now advert to the facts of the present case itself. It is the case of the assessee itself that it was running a regular kitchen to furnish wholesome food and drink to its customers. This would obviously come within the ambit of hospitality, whether lavish or frugal. Once that is so, it would be within the ambit of s. 37(2A) of the Act as an expense in the nature of entertainment, and, therefore, subject to the ceiling slabs prescribed in cls. (i) to (iv) thereof. We would, therefore, render the answer to question No. 1 (in para. 4 of this judgment), in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and hold that the kitchen expenses incurred were in the nature of entertainment expenditure. As was noticed at the very outset in para. 5, the case would now go back before the Division Bench for consideration and answer of the second question. BHOPINDER SINGH DHILLON J.-I agree. J. V. GUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (6) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ightly disagreed with the approach in that decision. Adopting the view expressed in the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 363, this court held that the liability of a past year cannot be taken into account for computing the income of a subsequent year. In this view, we think that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the liability to pay tax for the period from September 1, 1970, up to March 31, 1973, in one case and the assessment year ending on June 30, 1971, and that ending on June 30, 1972, in the other case arose only in the accounting year in which the cancellation notification of 9th November, 1973, was issued. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessees. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under s. 260(i) of the Act.
|
