|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 160 Records
-
1982 (5) TMI 125 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Transfer Of Assets, For Benefit Of Spouse Or Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... in any manner to the asset transferred. Therefore, the view taken by the AAC does appeal to us to be correct even though the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court appears to have been misquoted by him. 8. In this connection, reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh 1970 77 ITR 27 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down the rule for the application of section 64 of the 1961 Act or section 16(3) of the 1922 Act that the connection between the transfer of assets and the income must be proximate and that the income in question must arise as a result of the transfer and not in some manner connected with it. This, to our mind, appears to be a case where the income did not arise as a result of the transfer of the house to the assessee s wife but in some manner connected with it which means the prohibition laid down by the Supreme Court clearly applies here. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 123 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... e consideration for the amount received. The CIT was, therefore right in his conclusion that the amounts receivable under the agreements were to be taken into account in assessing the income of the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1975-76 even though it may not be correct to say that the assessee had changed the method of accounting. Hence, he was right in setting aside the assessment which did not include the income attributable to amounts payable under the agreements in question in the total income for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and in directing the ITO to make a fresh assessment including such amounts. However, it is but fair that the assessment of the subsequent assessment years are also revised to exclude the income assessed therein which is directed to be assessed in the asst. yr. 1975-76. We are sure that the consequential rectification of the assessment of the subsequent assessment years would, no doubt, be made by the ITO. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 121 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Income Tax, Original Order With Appellate Order ... ... ... ... ..... sentative and set aside the order with a direction to pursue the action which was validly initiated under section 155(7) within time since it is not a case where the action was ab initio bad. Hence, the second order has to be upheld. We are aware that on upholding the second order practically nullifies the assessee s success in respect of the first order, since in the revised calculation in his order on a different distributable income, the ITO has not repeated his mistake. But this is a result which we cannot help. If a mistake gets lawfully rectified, neither the taxpayer nor the revenue can make a grievance of it as no one has a vested right to the fruits of the mistake committed by another. 7. In the result, the appeal in respect of the rectification order dated 3-11-1978 is allowed and the impugned order is cancelled. The appeal in respect of the order dated 10-3-1979 is dismissed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the validity of the order is upheld.
-
1982 (5) TMI 118 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... d would not have filed a copy of its capital account in the books of the firm in the assessment proceedings of the firm. From these facts, it is clear that there was no intention to conceal the income on the part of the assessee and that the facts relating to the transfer of the property were not shown by it in the return due to the bona fide belief that no capital gain was includible in view of section 53 in the total income. No doubt, the assessee should have disclosed the particulars relating to the transfer of the property in Annexure III of the return, but the omission to do so does not prove the concealment on the part of the assessee, especially, when the assessee fully explained such omission. As the assessee was under the bona fide belief that in view of section 53, the capital gain was not to be included in the total income, no steps were taken by the assessee to disclose the particulars in the return. For the reasons, we cancel the penalty. . The appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 117 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... nd grand child of Bachansingh remained seriously ill since April, 1979 onwards and that factor was the reason for the delay. Medical certificate from Registered Medical Practitioner in support of the said illness was produced by the assessee before the ITO. 4. I am of the view that in cases like the instant one strict proof for delay does not have to be insisted upon as the assessee firm seeks only continuance of the registration already granted by the department for the preceding year. Fact remains that even the return of total income was filed by the assessee on 9th Mar, 1981. Thus, the assessee obviously ran the risk of being penalised for delay in filing of the return. That by itself indicates that as for furnishing Form No. 12 declaration, there did exist reasonable cause. In any case there is medical evidence on record. I find that the delay was condonable. ITO is directed to adjudicate the matter on merits according to law. . Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1982 (5) TMI 115 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ems to carry weight. 6. On assessee rsquo s side, it was urged that in the case of Ammathayee vs. Kumaresan, Supreme Court described Karta as not competent to make gift of ancestral immovable property, but that did not imply that the Supreme Court has held such gift to be void as such. Learned Counsel in this connection drew my attention to AIR 1971 SC 775 (Raghubanchmani vs. Ambica Prasad) and particularly, to para 5 of the said report. Following extract is relevant In any event as alienation by the Manager of the joint Hindu family even without legal necessity is voidable and not void. 7. Thus, the assessee argued that in the instant case, the only other coparcener, namely, Karta s son was agreeable to the gift in question and, in any case, the gift in question had not so far been got set aside through Court. I see force in this reasoning of the assessee and for the aforesaid reasons. I decline to interfere with the AAC s finding. Department fails. 8. Appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 114 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... luding certain amount on the basis of the assessee rsquo s income in his IT cases in his wealth, it must be established that the assessee had that particular assets available with him on he valuation date relevant for the particular assessment year. In the case before us, it is an admitted fact that this amount of Rs. 50,000 was not in possession of the assessee at the time of search seizure operation conducted in the premises of the assessee on 11th November 1975 even though the ITO has added the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. In income-tax proceedings, it is not proper to add the same amount to the wealth of the assessee in view of the decision of the aforesaid Kerala High Court decision. We, therefore, fully justify the order passed by the AAC in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000 made to the total wealth of the assessee from the asst. yr.1965-66 onwards. 8. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 113 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee reported in (1981 128 ITR 671 (Guj) where their Lordships have held that even though there was no discussion about an item in ITO rsquo s reassessment order, he must be deemed to have impliedly processed the item of expenditure which was claimed by way of deduction by the assessee and to have decided in the reassessment proceedings not to disturb the deduction which was granted in the original order of the assessment. In the present case before us, the assessee have submitted both before the ITO and before the IAC that interest accrues from year to year and will not accrue on the year of receipt. The ITO, in our opinion, has fully applied his mind to the aforesaid point and then only gave a finding that interest accrues from year to year and not on the year of receipt. We, therefore, hold that the order passed by the ITO was not erroneous and CIT rsquo s assumption of jurisdiction under s. 263 is bad in law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 112 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara corparcener property would devolve by testamentary under this Act and not by survivorship. Sec. 6 would not, however, come into play when the first part of s.6 of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that if the property purchased by the father of the assessee was not inherited by the assessee along with any other female relative of the kind mentioned in Class of Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, it can naturally be treated as HUF property in the family consisting of the assessee and his own children. This is apart from the fact that the assessee has already been assessed in his individual capacity in this very year and the income from the property in question had not been added in that individual assessment. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the case is sent back to the ITO for a fresh decision in the light of our aforesaid observations. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 111 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... supplied at fixed rates by the Government to the contractor solely for being used, fixed or incorporated in the works on the terms that they would remain the property of the Government and any surplus should be returned to the Government, the real total value of the entire contract would be the value minus the cost of such materials so supplied. Since no element for profit was involved in the turnover represented by the cost of the materials supplied by the Government of the appellant, the income or profit derived by the appellant from such contracts had to be determined on the basis of the value of the contracts represented by the cash payments received by the appellant from the Government exclusive of the cost of the materials received for being used, fixed or incorporated in the works. This being the law of the land now, there was no reason to deny the benefit of this decision to the assessee. This ground of appeal is also accepted. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 110 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... d that the firm of M.s Oriental Book and Stationery Co, if which the assessee was a partner had filed its own return on 13-2-1977 and therefore, the assessee could not file his individual return because his share of profits was not ascertained till then. The assessee had filed an application in form No. 6 to which he did not get and reply. The ITO has not specifically given any finding about the factum of the firm having filed in return on 13-2-1977 as alleged. In these circumstances apparent by so far as the assessee was concerned there was a reasonable cause for the delay. Reference may be made to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Prntap Chand Maheshwari (1980) 14 CTR (MP) 410 and a judgement of this Bench of Tribunal in ITO vs. H.R. Verma ITA no. 46/Ind/80 decided on 7-8-1980. Following the views expressed in these two judgements we are the opinion that there was sufficient cause for delay in question. The appeal is allowed and the penalty deleted.
-
1982 (5) TMI 109 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... r is to apply a net profits rate of 10 to 12 the mere fact that the assessee disclosed a higher net profit in the immediate preceding year may be due to certain exceptional circumstances, but it does not mean that the rule for application of a net profit rate in the case of the assessee would altogether be changed. It may be that there was a wind fall in that year. But this does not mean that it should continue for all the question. Keeping all these facts in view, we are of the opinion that the net profit rate applied in this case should be at 12 1/2 . The assessment would thus stand reduced by Rs. 6,697. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms.
-
1982 (5) TMI 108 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... acknowledgement of documents issued by the ITO Bhopal, to his advocate, Shri B.M. Gupta Item No 1 relates to Prahladrai c/o Mukhi Gokaldas Atalram form No 6A relating to the asst yr 1975-76 and the copy purports to be signed by some clerk of the IT department If the assessment made u/s 143 (i) had been objected to by the assessee naturally the penalty may have to be revised in the light of the ultimate figures adopted by the ITO. In a connected case of Uttamchand, where a similar penalty for this year was levied by this Bench has already set aside the penalty and directed the assessee rsquo s appeal to be heard afresh by the AAC after examining Shri B.M. Gupta, for the assessee and verifying the cause for the delay in the submission of the return. We accordingly by accept the appeal and direct that the levy of the penalty, in question, shall be decided in the light of the aforesaid observation. For statistical purpose, the appeal shall be deemed to have been allowed as such.
-
1982 (5) TMI 107 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... h were produced before me. In those accounts, it is noticed that the advances made by the assessee were mentioned only as cash advances. Nowhere can I find that the amount was advanced as capital. I do not find any material to support the contrary view that the amounts advanced by the assessee on which interest was paid represented capital contribution made by the assessee. It is also common ground that the interest and the share income had been assessed to tax in the relevant assessment years in the hands of the assessee. The assessee had written off the sum under consideration as irrecoverable on the dismissal of the suit by the Civil Court on 13th March, 1978 which fell within the year of account. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 22,193 in the computation of its income for the year under appeal. 7. The rulings cited by the ld. Deptl. Rep. are distinguishable on facts. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1982 (5) TMI 106 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... documents put together could be regarded as one instrument of gift, but not for the purpose of interpretation as to whether section 18A would apply to one instrument of gift or several instruments of gifts. If this interpretation is accepted, it would make the connecting link that the gift-tax payable in respect of each of such gifts exceeding Rs. 1,000 (sic) would be a qualification which would never be possible to implement. 9. For these reasons and for the reasons mentioned already in the decision of the Bench in Mukta Raghaviah we are of the opinion that section 18A thus contemplates that rebate of tax thereunder, can be allowed only if the gift-tax in respect of each of the instruments of gift exceeds Rs. 1,000 and not to the case where the gift-tax payable in respect of all the gifts made in the year exceeds Rs. 1,000. We, therefore, endorse the view expressed by the Bench and decline to accept the opposite view canvassed for. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 105 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Interest On Borrowed Capital, Reassessment, Information ... ... ... ... ..... as High Court had referred to its earlier decision in the case of CIT v. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation 1978 112 ITR 839 and observed as under We have considered an identical question in CIT v. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation 1978 112 ITR 839 (Mad.). We have held therein that with reference to the provisions of the 1961 Act, the assessment made on the firm as an unregistered firm, after the assessment made earlier in the case of one of the partners, was not legal. Though in the present case, the status taken is association of persons there is nothing in principle which would differentiate it from the principle enunciated in the said decision.... The above ruling, undoubtedly supports the contention of the assessee s learned counsel. However, I am not deciding this appeal on the basis of this contention, since it is not necessary to do so, in view of my findings above, that the reassessments themselves are invalid in law. 7. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 104 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Income From House Property, Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... ifferent entity. Since a HUF cannot be a partner in a partnership, it cannot be said that the assessee, which is a HUF in this case, carried on the business of the above firm for the purpose of holding that the business of the above firm can be considered as the business of the assessee. The ruling of the Gujarat High Court relied on by the learned representative of the assessee, was dealing with a case of an assessee who was an individual and who was a partner in a firm. Since that individual owned a godown which was used by the firm as business premises, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court held that the annual letting value of the said property should not be included in the total income of the assessee, an individual, under section 22 of the Act. The above decision would, therefore, not apply to the case of the assessee in this case, which is admittedly a HUF. I, therefore, confirm the consolidated order of the AAC for both the years. 5. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 103 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Deductions, Life Insurance Premium ... ... ... ... ..... sts in him only after such adoption and on his being alive on a date (after such adoption) specified in this behalf in the policy itself--- In Chandulal Harjiwandas v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 627 the Supreme Court held that under section 15(1) of the 1922 Act an assessee was entitled to claim rebate on the premia paid on a Children s Endowment Assurance Policy during the child s minority (also see Board s F. No. 14/8/66-IT (AI) dated 25-5-1967). It may be noted that section 80C(2), Explanation (ii), makes express statutory provision in this regard, which was not there in the corresponding section 15(1) of the 1922 Act. Under the Explanation up to assessment year 1969-70, such benefit was available only in the case of the minor child. From assessment year 1970-71, such benefit is also allowable to the father in his assessment. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the ITO is directed to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee and amend the assessment accordingly. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI-D
Firm, Registration, Genuineness Of ... ... ... ... ..... hed that there was no relationship of partners between the two who were in the position of an employer-employee before formation of the partnership. But in the present case, Shri J. Lal joined the firm as a partner in the year 1971 under a deed of partnership dated 2-7-1971 and was recognised as such partner up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1976-77. There is no material which would justify an inference adverse to the assessee that Shri Lal is not a partner and that, therefore, the assessee is not a genuine firm. On the contrary, the cumulative effect of all the materials including the various recitals in the deed of partnership is that the assessee-firm is a genuine partnership which is entitled to registration under section 185(1)(a) of the Act. We, therefore, agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) that registration was refused on a mere suspicion. We, therefore, confirm the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss this appeal.
-
1982 (5) TMI 101 - ITAT DELHI-D
Income Tax, Original Order With Appellate Order ... ... ... ... ..... pport from Sundaram Golden Jubilee Edition of Law of Income-tax, Vol. II, where the learned author opined as follows Other articles in sub-clause (iv) may include implements and small machines, i. e., pumps, motors, etc., and also things like pesticides, fertilisers, etc. In our view the decision of the Allahabad High Court in U. P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. does not apply to the facts of the case. In that case it was held that coal is not an article intended for agriculture. That decision does not advance the case of the revenue. Coal and fertilisers are not one and the same category of articles. Coal is certainly not an article used for agricultural operation but, fertiliser, under the present conditions, became a necessary concomitant of agricultural operation. 12. Therefore, we are unable to see any merit in both the principal arguments advanced on behalf of the revenue to this case, hence, we confirm the Commissioner (Appeals) s order and dismiss the revenue s appeal.
........
|
