|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 160 Records
-
1982 (5) TMI 80 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... certain discrepancies and the assessee s reply that certain discrepancies did survive as unexplained, for example, the assessee was not in a position to file details of closing stock, the difference in number of fans pledged with the bank as per record of the assessee and as per bank certificate was not explained and the discrepancy in the difference of accounts is also not that clearly explained which would not warrant any addition. Under the circumstances, therefore, we direct the loss of Rs. 35,832 to be reduced by Rs. 5,656 (Rs. 1,892 being the difference plus Rs. 3,764 on account of discrepancy of double entry discussed by the ITO in his order) and further by Rs. 3,000 being the cost of 11 fans which was the unexplained difference between fans pledged as per record of the assessee and the bank certificate. In other words, the loss of Rs. 35,832 is restricted to Rs. 27,196 (Rs. 35,832-Rs. 8,656 (Rs. 1892 3764 30007) (sci)). 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 79 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... parties in the year of account. Therefore, in our opinion, this loss was referable to the instant year. Learned advocate for the revenue drew our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills (P) Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 134 (SC). But there the facts were entirely different. Where the claim for damages is the liability to pay damages under dispute unless the dispute is adjudicated or settled between the parties, the claim could not be said to have arisen. This view is in consonance with the view of this court in the case of CIT vs. Showbux Jahurilal (1962) 46 ITR 688 (Cal) as well as the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 74 ITR (SC). 9. In the light of above discussion and on the basis of facts pertaining to the case, addition of Rs. 35,000 made by the ITO and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) deserves to be deleted. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 78 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ntion found favour with the Tribunal on the strength of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC) and therefore, the reference, if granted, shall only be academic. The application of the concerned Commr. is, therefore rejected. 5. Before we part with the matter, we may mention that at the time of hearing of the reference application, the ld. Deptl. Rep. Mr, M.P. Singh placed his reliance on the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kartikey V. Sarabhai and Ors (1981) 24 CTR (Guj) 184 (1981)131 ITR 42 (Guj) but looking to the facts of the case the reliance is misplaced. In the instant case, the Tribunal following the Supreme Court decision came to the findings that there is no transfer because immovable property was the subject-matter introduced by the assessee in the firm in which he became partner and there was no registration of conveyance in that regard. 6. In the result, reference application is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 77 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Salaries, Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... relationship between the joint family on the one hand acting through its karta Shri Badri Dass, and Shri Badri Dass, individual, on the other. In fact, clause (1) of the agreement shows that Rs. 1,500 was paid to him as monthly salary . 11. Since the employer and employee relationship existed between the joint family and the individual, the salary received by him was for all intents and purposes taxable as salary as defined in section 15. When it is salary for purposes of taxation under the Act, deduction under section 16(i) is a necessary accompaniment of such treatment of a sum received by the assessee. Therefore, when the assessee made a claim for standard deduction under section 16(i) before the ITO, he was fully justified in doing so. The authorities below erred in rejecting this claim of the assessee on untenable grounds. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below are reversed and the ITO is directed to allow the admissible claim of the assessee. 12. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 76 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Deductions, Physically Handicapped Persons ... ... ... ... ..... assessee has wrongly been denied a deduction which he was entitled to. I direct that the sum of Rs. 5,000 be allowed under section 80U(ii). 8. Before I close, it would be necessary to refer to the point made out by the ITO, by giving the assessed income of the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment years to make his point. In this regard, a cursory reading of section 80U(ii) shows that the permanent physical disability (other than blindness) from which the resident assessee suffered should be such which has the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation. In fact, the ITO has seen the income earned by the assessee, which may not necessarily be the income which the assessee would have earned in case permanent physical disability had not reduced substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation. Therefore, the angle from which the ITO examined the issue was wholly erroneous. 9. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 75 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Bank Deposits, Interest Income, Interest On Securities, Provident Fund, Providing Credit Facilities
-
1982 (5) TMI 74 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Capital, Computation Of ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, not based upon the nomenclature but it is based upon the true nature of the reserve created by the assessee. Therefore, the ITO was justified in not excluding the sum of Rs. 24,00,000. As the order of the ITO is maintained on this issue, the order of the Commissioner is partly modified. 13. The second Appeal No. 34 (Cal.) of 1981 is arising out of the order of the ITO who had re-made the assessment when it was set aside by the Commissioner under section 16(1) of the Act. The order of the Commissioner has been maintained so far as the exclusion of dividend of Rs. 24,32,250 is concerned. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner on this issue is maintained. The order of the Commissioner in giving direction to the ITO to exclude Rs. 24,00,000 has been reversed in the earlier paragraph. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner on this issue is modified and the original order of the ITO on this issue is maintained. 14. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 73 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... r consideration. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of both the parties came to the conclusion that the amounts of compensation relating to the second and third instalments did not accrue or become payable to the assessee in that assessment year under consideration and since the assessee did not have any right to claim these amounts in the first year the same were not taxable in this assessment year. The Tribunal further held that only the amount relating to the first instalment become due to the assessee during the assessment year under consideration and so the same was taxable in the year. Evidently, this is a finding of fact and does not give rise to any referable question of law. We may also mention that the IT Appellate Tribunal has rejected the Reference Application No. 1724 (Bom)(1) 1979 of the Department in the similar case of Shri Anup P. Makvasa, another employee of the I.B.M. World Trade Corpn. 7. In the result, the Reference Application is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 72 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Orders Passed, Seized Assets ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee is a businessman who is regularly assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax and so was his grandfather. As such, there is every possibility of the possession of these articles by the assessee, particularly when these are simple articles usually worn by the male members of a Hindu family. From the aforesaid finding of the ITO, there is no doubt in our mind that he has not come to his conclusion on the material on record rather same is arrived at on inferences and surmises and conjectures, which cannot take a place of proof. The onus is on the assessee to prove that the assets seized belonged to the assessee and he is coming from a family of status, which onus is not discharged by the assessee. Moreover, the Commissioner in deciding the case on merits, has assigned cogent and relevant reasons with which we agree and there is no material on record at this stage, on the basis of which we may be in a position to differ with him. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 71 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... essee s objections to the finding of the Commr. on this point have to be rejected because as per the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J. Hemchand and Company the assessee is not eligible for these deductions. 23. The second ground taken is against the finding of the Commr. With regard to the claim under s. 80J There is no dispute that the assessee is eligible for this deduction. The dispute is only on the working of the capital employed. The Commr. has not given any clear finding on this point. In any case, the working of the capital employed is now to be per the amended provisions of s. 80J. we will direct the ITO to work out the relief due as per the law. 24. At the time page 17 hearing the assessee stated that it did not press for any relief in the cross objection for the asst. yr. 1978-79. So, the cross objection is dismissed as not pressed. 25. In the result the appeals by the Department and the cross objections by the assessee are dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 70 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... Is not relevant for the issue before us as rightly observed by the CIT (Appeals). After all, the agreement dated 7th April,1973 and the release of the picture on 30th May, 1975 were both events prior to the date of the search. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the CIT (Appeals) that explanation of the assessee must be held to be satisfactory in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, we find that the entries in the accounts of M/s. H.M. Films as confirmed by the said party amounts to Rs. 3,30,000 only. Hence, there is no explanation, whatsoever, for the remaining sum of Rs. 3,000. We, therefore, hold that the sum of Rs. 3,000 should be added back as unexplained cash credits to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act. Hence, we direct that the amount to be added should be reduced to Rs. 3,000 in place of Rs. 3,33,000 taken by the ITO and the assessment modified accordingly. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 69 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... ch has to be determined by including the cost incurred in connection with the release, there cannot be any doubt that the liability for the services rendered by Shri Ramesh Sippy in the facts and circumstances of this case in includible in the cost of the film. Once the cost is arrived at the assessee would be entitled to the amortisation allowance according to the accepted principles. What we are, therefore, concerned with is to determine the cost of the film and not the question whether the liability in respect of payment to Shri Ramesh Sippy has been incurred and, therefore, allowable as a deduction for the year under appeal. To make the matter clear we are here concerned only without the cost of the film and not whether the liability accrued due in this year so as to deduct the same as a revenue expenditure. The ground taken by the Revenue, in our opinion, is misconceived. 19. In the above view of the matter, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 68 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Capital Gains, Computation Of ... ... ... ... ..... ital gains. 9. The second ground relates to the value as on 1-1-1954. Here again we are one with the Commissioner (Appeals). He has examined the question of valuation on the basis of several instances of sale at the relevant time. In para 6 of his order, he noticed several instances of sale. He has also considered the report of the valuer. He has taken into account the value as on 1-1-1954 at Rs. 57,000 and after discounting it in view of the fact that what was given was only leasehold right, he determined it at Rs. 43,000. After hearing the learned departmental representative we do not find any flaw in the reasoning or conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is evidence on record regarding the sale instances at the relevant time and the value determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) is quite reasonable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The second ground also fails. 10. In the result, the appeal and the cross-objection are dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 67 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Appealable Orders, Payment Not Deductible, Salary Paid To Partners
-
1982 (5) TMI 66 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... e, the right to carry forward cannot be denied merely on the ground that the ITO failed to quantify the same. 4. We have considered the contentions of both the parties as well as the facts on record. In our opinion, the decision of the AAC is based upon sound reasoning and good authority. It is common knowledge that no person can be allowed to take advantage of his own laches. The assessee had claimed the loss before ITO, who issued a notice under s. 143(2), which was also responded to by the assessee. The share of the loss attributable to the assessee already stood determined in the files of the firms. Under the circumstances, relying on the cases of Kushalchand Daga and All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd., we hold that the AAC was quite justified in his decision. The decision in the case of Manmohandas is no bar to allow the claim of the assessee in this case, because the loss has actually been determined in the files of the firms. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 65 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... he business. Even the closing stock was kept intact. It has been explained that the dispute between the brother partners was going on and has been referred to an arbitrator. Once there is an established business, the presumption is that the business is continuing unless there are definite factors indicating to the contrary. I find no such definite indication. On the contrary, the case of the assessee that it has merely stopped the business temporarily due to internal dispute and that it intended to restart the same, appears to me to be quite consistent with the facts of this case, as stated above. Hence, I come to the conclusion that the revenue authorities were not justified in disallowing the loss of Rs. 30,126, on the ground that the assessee had discontinued the business. I, therefore, direct that the business loss of Rs. 30,126 should be taken as determined for the asst. yr. 1978-79. The assessment should be modified accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 64 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... planation 1(iv) to s. 153(3). Consequently, the assessment made by the ITO on 14th Jan, 1980 is within the extended period of limitation, and so, the assessment is quite valid. The appeal fails on this ground alone. In view of this conclusion of ours, it is not necessary to go into the other contention based on the applicability of s. 271(1)(c), raised by the revenue in its favour. 11. We have gone through the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balwant Singh Arora, but we find that the benefit of the decision in the case of Zulekha Begum was not available to them. Since, to our knowledge the said decision of the High Court is the only direct authority on the point, relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Godawari Saraff (smt) (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom), we hold that the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal is of no help to the assessee. For the above reasons, we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals). 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 63 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... the value of an individual property exceeds Rs. 5,00,000 is certainly not contemplated in the section. In the circumstances, it can be reasonably assumed that the Board s direction has gone beyond the provisions of the Act. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the said direction in the Circular affects the judicial aspects of the administration of the Act as distinct from the administrative aspects. Therefore, following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT, we would hold that the said Circular was not binding on the WTO in this regard and the CWT would not be justified in holding the orders of assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the ground that the WTO completed the assessments without following the direction contained in the said Circular. 9. Having regard to the above discussion, we hold that the order of the CWT cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 62 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Development Rebate, Allowance of ... ... ... ... ..... e certainly not justified in holding that these condensers could not be said to have been put into use just because the necessity to use them did not arise before 1-6-1975. Factually, Sri Dastur has admitted that while the bigger condenser was put into use during the month of December 1975, i.e., within the previous year, the other condenser was not actually used during the year at all. The departmental representative has strongly relied on the orders of the IAC and the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. In our opinion, the submission made on behalf of the assessee is well founded. We agree with the assessee s counsel that in a case like this the machinery or plant will have to be treated as put into use the moment it is ready for the use. There then being no dispute that the above two condensers were received by the assessee in the month of April 1975, i.e., before 1-6-1975, and that the other conditions are satisfied, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the development rebate.
-
1982 (5) TMI 61 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Deductions, Profits And Gains From Newly Established Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... and so, he had no occasion to consider whether the conditions laid down in section 80J(2) applied to the facts of the case. It goes without saying that no relief under section 80J(1) or 80J(3) can be allowed unless the conditions under section 80J(2) have been fulfilled. Hence, I feel that the ITO should have entertained the claim and examined whether the conditions under section 80J(2) were fulfilled by the assessee and if so, allowed the claim of the assessee. Under the circumstances, I vacate the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and restore the matter to the file of the ITO. The ITO should, after due enquiry, give a finding as to whether the conditions under section 80J(2) were satisfied by the assessee or not in the years in which the deficiencies arose. He should give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Then he should dispose of the matter in accordance with the law. 9. In the result, the appeal may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
|
