|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 185 Records
-
1981 (7) TMI 105
... ...
... ... ..... nal against the orders of the AAC/CIT, the income of the firm in which the assessee is a partner had been substantially enhanced and the assessee was not entitled to the present refunds otherwise. On behalf of the assessee this position was not seriously disputed, but it was contended that the matter had already been taken up in Reference before the High Court and as a result thereof the Tribunal s orders passed in case of the firm might be modified and the assessee may ultimately be entitled to some refunds. We only need to say that at present we are not deciding the final fate of the present refunds. All that we are holding is that if the assessee is ultimately found entitled to any refunds as a result of the ultimate decision in the case of the firm the provisions of s. 9 or 10 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 would not stand in his way for the reasons discussed above. To this extent, all these appeals should be deemed to have been allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 104
... ...
... ... ..... w that the business was extended as a result of the reconstitution. In these circumstances, the principle laid down by the Madras High Court in CGT, Madras vs. V.A.M. Ayya Nadar (1969) 73 ITR 761 (Mad) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. This is apart from the fact that the same High Court had taken a different view in CGT, Tamil Nadu vs. G. Shanmugam and Anr. (1979) 9 CTR (Mad) 202 (1979) 118 ITR 890 (Mad). A somewhat similar view was taken by the same High Court in CGT vs. N. Palaniappa Mudaliar and Anr. (1978) 113 ITR 440 (Mad), Recently, the A Bench of the Tribunal at Bombay in GTA No. 23 (Bom)/79 in the case of GTO vs. Rasiklal S. Parekh (1981) 11 TTJ 400 has also taken a view in favour of the assessee after considering nearly all the authorities on the subject. 4. In view of the circumstances of this case and the position of law as discussed above, we are of the opinion that there is not much force in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 103
Business Expenditure, Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises, nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures and surmises, and if it does anything of the sort, its findings even though on questions of fact will be liable to be set aside by the Court. In the result, we accept ground Nos. 3 and 4 in the assessee s appeal and reject the very first ground in the revenue s appeal. 16 and 17. Paras 16 and 17 are not reported here as they involve minor issue. 18. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the revenue is dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 102
... ...
... ... ..... ve circular also gives a clue that where there is an ambiguity in the matter of set off of loss against income under various heads it should be done in a manner without doing violence to the language of the section and also in a manner which gives maximum benefit to the assessee. Therefore, the first augment taken by the assessee is reasonable and has to be accepted. As for the applicability of s. 80T to long-term capital gains, we would prefer to rest our decision, on the Madras High Court decision 120 ITR 688 for the purpose of holding that deduction under s. 80T should be given to the gross long-term capital gains and before setting them off against short term capital loss. No doubt, the Gujarat High Court has taken an opposite view but were two conflicting view s are there on a particular issue, it would be only fair to take the view in favour of the assessee. We would therefore, rest our decision on the Madras High Court decision 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 101
... ...
... ... ..... ve societies and such foreign companies. They are members of an AOP viewed through the spectacles of Income-tax Law. But the Act itself provides different treatment in such cases. Co-operative Societies declare dividend and only that dividend is considered for assessment in the hands of the members, although for assessment purposes co-operative society is an AOP, the members are assessed only what they are entitled to receive, that is, dividend. It cannot be different for other Association of Persons and their members. 11. We, therefore, hold that the share income from the AOP is includible in the assessee s hands. But, this share has to be determined after deducting from the income of the AOP the tax payable by it. The Deptl. appeal will be partly allowed. 12. In the cross objection, the assessee has mainly advocated for the acceptance of the alternative contention which we have, in the above paragraph, found to be correct. So the cross objection would stand partly allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 100
... ...
... ... ..... lue at Rs. 7.50 per dollar in the aforesaid case, and there is no distinguishing feature of the case of the assessee with that of the Tribunal, rather, the appeal is there on the issue to keep them after alive. Hence, we hold that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, following it with respect, we hold that the CIT (A) is right in taking the value of the dollar at Rs. 7.50 per dollar for the purpose of conversion of the freight earned by the assessee, referred to above. In view of our above discussions and the reasons thereto, we hold that the CIT (A) was justified in holding that the freight collected in dollars abroad should be converted at the rate of one dollar equal to Rs. 7.50 notwithstanding the fact that the prevailing rate of exchange of the dollar was higher and the freight earned did not constitute the income as such of the assessee. Hence, we confirm his order. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 99
... ...
... ... ..... lue at Rs. 7.50 per dollar in the aforesaid case, and there is no distinguishing feature of the case of the assessee with that of the Tribunal, rather, the appeal is there on the issue to keep them after alive. Hence, we hold that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, following it with respect, we hold that the CIT (A) is right in taking the value of the dollar at Rs. 7.50 per dollar for the purpose of conversion of the freight earned by the assessee, referred to above. In view of our above discussions and the reasons thereto, we hold that the CIT (A) was justified in holding that the freight collected in dollars abroad should be converted at the rate of one dollar equal to Rs. 7.50 notwithstanding the fact that the prevailing rate of exchange of the dollar was higher and the freight earned did not constitute the income as such of the assessee. Hence, we confirm his order. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 98
... ...
... ... ..... J of the Act. 4. The Revenue to the Tribunal and contended that the decision of the CIT(A) was erroneous. The Tribunal, relying on the decision dt. 21st Jan., 1976 of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4241 to 4243 (Bom)/74-75 and the circular referred to above dt. 23rd July, 1979 upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. 5. The question which was before the Tribunal was whether the activity carried on by the assessee amounted to those of an industrial undertaking. The Tribunal held that it did, relying on the circular of the CBDT which is binding on all the Officers of the Deptt., vide the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ellerman Lines Ltd. 1972 CTR (SC) (1971) 82 913 (SC). Apart from the fact that the decision of the Tribunal was essentially in the realm of the facts, it is in accordance with the view expressed by the CBDT that is binding on all the Officers of the IT Deptt. Hence, the matter stands concluded. 6. In the result, the application is rejected.
-
1981 (7) TMI 97
Residential House, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ase, the provisions of section 44 are clear enough to indicate that all liabilities of the deceased on the date of the death are to be deducted while determining the principal value of the estate for the purpose of levy of estate duty unless any of the liabilities is hit by clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 44. We would reject the revenue s contention based on an interpretation of section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act for the further reason that this provision lays down one more disability for deduction of liability, namely, if the liability was incurred in relation to the property under consideration. To our mind, provisions of a sister legislation can be taken in for clarifying obscure issues in the parent legislation. They cannot be utilised for imposing further conditions for granting relief to the taxpayers. In the circumstances, in our opinion, there is no substance in the argument on behalf of the revenue. 8. The appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 96
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... 5-8-1974 showing an income of Rs. 1,80,350. A revised return was filed on 4-8-1976, showing an income of Rs. 1,73,750. A second revised return was filed on 22-3-1977 showing a loss of Rs. 8,50,800. A draft assessment order was made by the ITO on 29-3-1977 and final order on 23-9-1977. Now, it would be seen that the assessment was completed within one year of the date of filing the second revised return. This much time is allowed to the ITO under section 153(1)(c). So, the assessment order is not barred by limitation. 40. The third ground is against the directions issued under section 144A by the IAC. There was a departmental appeal which touched upon the addition directed to be made under section 144A and which was deleted by the AAC. The Tribunal has upheld the AAC s order in this matter. In view of the relief allowed to the assessee in the departmental appeal, this question would not survive and was not pressed before us. 41. In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 95
... ...
... ... ..... iving at the correct new wealth which has to be disclosed in their wealth-tax returns. The correct ascertainment of particulars of taxable income of a person would, therefore, be a necessary step in ascertaining the position of the net wealth of the same person on the relevant valuation dates. Any delay in the preparation of the particulars of the assessee s income cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant while considering whether any consequential delays in the filing of the wealth-tax return was for reasonable cause or not. The period of unreasonable delay in filing the assessee s wealth-tax return must, therefore be reckoned, for purposes of penalty, from the date of the filing of his income-tax return. 7. After taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and in the light of the facts discussed above, the assessee should not have been visited with any penalty u/s 18 (1) (a). The same is, therefore cancelled. 8. On the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 94
... ...
... ... ..... he has some kind of experience and even knowledge. But then, it has been found whether she has the requisite or necessary technical or professional qualifications as understood by us. We, therefore held on the facts of this case and for the year under appeal, that the payment made to Smt. Mokashi cannot be allowed under the proviso to s. 64(1)(ii). Thus the disallowance made for this year is upheld though it would be open to the assessee in a future year to prove that Smt. Mokashi satisfies the proviso to s. 64(1)(ii) as interpreted by us. As far as the year under appeal is concerned, the assessee, Dr. Mokashi, fails. 41. As regards the cases of interveners, they will, no doubt, be decided by the respective Benches on their facts after taking into account the principles laid down by us in the present case. We do not wish to express any opinion on the ultimate decision or conclusion which the other Benches would draw in those cases. 42. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 93
... ...
... ... ..... the lease deed. Shri V.H. Patil has pointed out that the assessee has appealed against the Municipal valuation and the matter is pending before the Small Causes Court. Consequently, the figure fixed by the Municipal Corporation cannot be taken to be more authoritative than the actual rent received by the assessee in view of the decision in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor. Similarly, in the case of Mrs. Leela Govindan it has been held that the amount received by the assessee should be taken as the annual letting value and not the Municipal valuation. We also find force in the argument of the assessee relating to the asst. yr. 1975-76. The CIT has set aside the assessment order for being done a fresh which has necessarily to be done in accordance with the law. The law as laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on the ITO while doing the reassessment under s. 263. We, therefore, uphold the order of the AAC for all the five years. 7. In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 92
Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... mild flutter by stating that he himself could not afford such accommodation. In concluding, Mr. Desai requested the delegates to offer their suggestions which would help to make the tourist s stay more pleasant and offer him more facilities, so that more people visit other countries, exchange views and bring the world together. That would help to end strife and bring peace to the world. I attach great importance to this activity in all countries, particularly in my own country and it is, therefore, with the greatest pleasure that I inaugurate the 27th conference. 7. In the light of the above discussion, we are convinced that the contribution of the assessee in a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards Food Festival organised at the time of PATA Conference in 1978 cannot be termed as entertainment. On the basis of facts alone, we accept the contention of the assessee and delete the addition of Rs. 45,000 made by the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 91
Attributable To, Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... d of experience and even knowledge. But then, it has not been found whether she has the requisite or necessary technical or professional qualifications as understood by us. We, therefore, held, on the facts of this case and for the year under appeal, that the payment made to Smt. Mokashi cannot be allowed under the proviso to section 64(1)(ii). Thus. the disallowance made for this year is upheld though it would be open to the assessee in a future year to prove that Smt. Mokashi satisfies the proviso to section 64(1)(ii) as interpreted by us. As far as the year under appeal is concerned, the assessee, Dr. Mokashi fails. 41. As regards the cases of interveners, they will, no doubt, be decided by the respective Benches on their facts after taking into account the principles laid down by us in the present case. We do not wish to express any opinion on the ultimate decision or conclusion which the other Benches would draw in those cases. 42. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 90
... ...
... ... ..... the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Circular dt 28th Sept., 1957 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. So, following it, we held that the valuation fixed in the asst. yr. 1972-73 need not be disturbed for the succeeding two asst. yrs. i.e., 1973-74 and 1974-75, and asst. yr. 1973-74 is one of these. As the assessee has shown net wealth for the assessment year under consideration on adopting the value fixed in the asst. yr. 1972-73 for the immovable property (land), and being so, hold that the valuation shown by the assessee for the immovable property is justified. Hence, the authorities below were not justified in not accepting it being so, we set aside their respective orders and accept the valuation shown for the immovable property in dispute and the net wealth declared by the assessee, for the year under consideration. 8. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 89
Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... the said charge would be revived in case of sale and the same would go to swell the profits in the year in which the asset is sold. Therefore, if the essential distinction between an expenditure and depreciation allowance is kept in mind, then the inevitable conclusion is that item of depreciation is not an expenditure incurred, which would qualify for weighted deduction under section 35C. An alternative submission was raised by Shri Dastur, that the cost of asset could also be allowed as an expenditure in determining the weighted deduction. We are unable to accept this contention also, because no such claim was made before the authorities below and the scope of section 35C does not contemplate deduction on capital account, as the claim for deduction pertains to expenditure on goods, services and facilities which would cover the expenditure on revenue account. 12. This para is not reproduced here as it involves a minor issue. 13. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 88
... ...
... ... ..... been filed and as it is not disposed of, a reasonable value has to be taken. Thus, he supported the order of the AAC. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. No doubt, a suit has been filed but, practically there is no hope of any recovery. The company itself has been struck off from the Registers of the Company Law Board. The Notices in the suit are also not being served. The debtor is practically not traceable. In view of these circumstances, there is no possibility of recovery of the debt due. In our view, nothing should be included in the net wealth in respect of the debt due from M/s. Govind Glass Works Ltd. Thus we direct the WTO to exclude the debt due from M/s. Govind Glass Works Ltd., as well as the interest from the net wealth. 5. The other grounds raised in these appeals are not pressed, and accordingly rejected. 6. In the result, WTA Nos. 294, 295 and 296 (Bang)/1980 are dismissed for non-prosecution while WTA Nos. 297 to 301 (Bang)/1980 are partly allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 87
... ...
... ... ..... ual sale consideration. He submitted that there is no evidence to show that the assessee has received any amount in addition to what has been shown in the sale deed. Thus, he urged that the provisions of s. 52(1) or (2) have no application. The ld. Deptl. Rep. justified the orders of the lower authorities. 3. The ITO has not brought any material to show that the assessee has received any extra money than what is stated in the sale deed. The ratio laid down by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sanjee vs. kudva (127 ITR 354) is clearly applicable to the facts of the instant case. It has been held therein that s. (2) like sub-s (1) of s. 52 of the Act is inapplicable to the sales of inadequate consideration. Following the above decision, we held that the sale consideration shown by the assessee at Rs. 32,000 should have been adopted and not Rs. 54,000. We direct the ITO to adopt Rs. 32,000 and compute the capital gains accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 86
... ...
... ... ..... Deptl. appeals. The dispute in this appeal is that the CIT (Appeals) was wrong in taking the total income at Rs. 2,62,210 and arriving at distributable income of Rs. 80,366 and working out the additional income-tax at Rs. 40,183. In the icome-tax appeal in ITA No. 992 (Bang)/1977-78, this Bench of the Tribunal by its order dt. 28th June, 1979, held that Rs. 75,000 has to be allowed as deduction, on account of payment to V.S.T. and Sons, in computing the distributable surplus. After allowing the above deduction by giving effect to the order of the Tribunal the total income comes to Rs. 2,62,210. On that basis the Commr. (Appeals) has worked out the distributable income at Rs. 80,366 and the additional income-tax leviable at Rs. 40,183. We do not find any error in the order of the Commr. (Appeals). He has only followed the order dt. 28th June, 1979 of this Bench referred to above. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
........
|
