|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 280 Records
-
1984 (2) TMI 180 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Business Income, Charitable Or Religious Trust, Charitable Purpose, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... lving transfer of funds from the Hyderabad Race Club to the assessee-institution in a form recognised by law and not shown to be colourable or otherwise sham and, therefore, not capable of being ignored. Since it is not business, the question of considering whether such income is hit by section 13(1)(bb) does not arise and we have not gone into that aspect of the assessee s argument. In the circumstances, we hold that the assessee is an institution which satisfies the conditions of section 2(15) read with section 11. Since the ITO has not considered the requirements for accumulation, if there has been such accumulation or application of sections 12, 12A and 13 of the Act, in the view we have taken, we set aside the assessment, for considering these aspects of the case. 9. In the result, the appeals are treated as allowed. The assessments are set aside. Since the appeals themselves have been disposed, stay petitions have become infructuous and they are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 179 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Incentive Bonus, Special Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... the income cannot stand. There are arguments which are not considered here but cannot be brushed aside without considering some further aspects of the special relationship which development officers have with the Corporation. Again, it is difficult to justify any action which seeks to assess something which is not the real income of the assessee. Concept of real income has been applied to business and there is no reason why it should not apply to other heads of income. Even salary that is contemplated cannot always mean gross salary even if the salary that goes into the pocket of the assessee is only a small part of it. These are again aspects which we do not consider it necessary to discuss in this case as the assessee is found even otherwise eligible for the deduction allowed by the ITO in the assessment. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Commissioner (as modified by his further order under section 264) set aside and the order of the ITO is restored.
-
1984 (2) TMI 178 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ious year. He resigned his post in India w.e.f. 1st Nov., 1974 and took up a job in a foreign country w.e.f. 15th Nov., 1974. In respect of his salary income in the foreign company he adopted samvat year as the previous year and offered his salary income for the period 15th Nov., 1974 to 3rd Nov., 1975 which was included by the ITO for the asst. yr. 1975-76. Considering the facts and circumstances arising in this case and also by respectfully following the said judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the decision of the Tribunal, we also hold that it is open to the assessee himself to make up the accounts in respect of the income earned in the foreign country and elect a different previous year for the income under s. 3(1) (b) of the IT Act. Accordingly, we direct the ITO to delete the assessee s salary income in the foreign country for the period from 30th Jan., 1980 to 31st March, 1980 amounting to Rs. 15,997. 6. Accordingly, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee.
-
1984 (2) TMI 177 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Accounting Year, Assessee's Appeal, Assessment Year, Capital Loss, Carry Forward And Set Off, Interest On Deposit, Previous Year
-
1984 (2) TMI 176 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Advertisement Expenditure, Sales Promotion ... ... ... ... ..... essee under a scheme to be given to only those who have taken the prescribed quantities could not be treated as advertisement expenses. Hence, there is no case for disallowance of Rs. 25,818 (Rs. 24,453 and Rs. 1,365). It is also possible to have the view that share of cost of the gifts enjoined under schemes sponsored by the principals was, in substance, an abatement of commission earned by the assessee and not an expenditure and much less an expenditure on advertising under section 37(3). In any view, rule 6B can have no application. The appeal succeeds on this point. Further, in IT Appeal No. 1255 (Hyd.) of 1982, dated 7-5-1983, similar expenditure by another liquor dealer was allowed though in that case the gifts were of articles below Rs. 50. In view of what has been stated hereinbefore and on the facts of the assessee s case, we have no doubt that the order of the first appellate authority deserves to be confirmed. 4. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 175 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ative, as pointed out earlier, the stringency as found by the Tribunal was of much greater intensity and the default by and large of much lesser duration. In the assessee s case, the tax has not been paid even at the time when the penal proceedings were initiated. There are no other facts or other circumstances which would justify our disagreement with the authorities. In other words, we find that the argument that there was financial stringency hard enough to constitute sufficient cause for non-payment of self-assessment tax is found unacceptable on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee s case. No doubt, both the ITO and the AAC, prima facie, considered that financial stringency by itself cannot avoid penalty. They would not be right in taking this view as a universal proposition. But their conclusion was right on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee s case. It is for this reason, we uphold their orders. 8. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 174 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Quoted Equity Shares, Reason To Believe, Valuation Date, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... hares, Remarks debts due from other persons, commodities or any other assets ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description Name in Amount of asset which held Rs. Aluminium Valued at B/f 17,17,500 This represents usual scrap accumulations scrap Rs. 5 kg. per 82,500 from year to year which have remained unsold. The system adopted by us was to account for the scrap after sale from time to time at actual sale value realised. This scrap is accounted now at a value of Rs. 5 per kg. --------------------------- Total 18,00,000 --------------------------- Note The aluminium scrap in stock is 17.362 tonnes out of it an allowance of 5 per cent for grease, dirt and foreign matter has to be deducted, leaving a figure of 16,500 metric tonnes. This at the rate of Rs. 5 per kg. works out to Rs. 82,500. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
1984 (2) TMI 173 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... t have been invoked to the facts of the present case in view of the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 397 (SC) because the Department has placed no evidence on record to show that any money over and above the said consideration passed from the vendee to the vendor. So far as the original sale price of Rs. 20,000 is concerned, the assessee had declared it in his income-tax return. The quantum of capital gain was of course not stated by the assessee in his return. But he had offered to being assessed on whatever capital gain was computed by the ITO of the sale of the aforesaid property for Rs. 20,000. On these facts it is not understood as to how the assessee could be charged either of having concealed the particulars of income or of having furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The learned AAC rightly deleted the penalty imposed by the ITO. According I uphold his order and dismiss the departmental appeal.
-
1984 (2) TMI 172 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... rmining the annual value of the property. 3. From the portion underlined by me above, it would be seen that what is to be found that with regard to the municipal taxes before the same are deducted from the annual value, is whether there was any municipal tax levied by local authority . If tax has been levied, it has to be deducted from the annual letting value whether or no the same has been paid during the previous year. The payment of the tax is not the precondition of deduction. Levy of the tax by the municipal authority is the condition for deducting tax. In the present case, it is not in dispute that municipal tax had been levied on the assessee though he had not paid it. The claim of the assessee, therefore, for deduction of municipal tax was entirely justified and the learned AAC was entirely correct when he upheld the above claim of the assessee. We find no infirmity in his order and accordingly we confirm it. 3. In the result, the departmental appeal stands rejected.
-
1984 (2) TMI 171 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... issioner v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC). The departmental representative opposed this contention and has contended that said case Commissioner v. Kullu Valley Transport Co. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) is no longer applicable as the said decision was based on section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. But on a careful examination of the provisions of section 22 of the 1922 Act and section 139 of the 1961 Act, we are satisfied that there has not been any material charge in the provisions of the two sections in the two Acts justifying non-application of the Supreme Court case reported in (1970) 77 ITR 518(SC). We are satisfied that according to the existing law, the loss determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act has to be carried forward in the instant case. As such, we set aside order of the authorities below and direct that the assessee be permitted to carry forward the loss in accordance with law. As a result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 170 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... d the assessee has made investments and is not able to explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the investments. But in the instant case there is no allegation or poof that the assessee has made investments to he extent of Rs. 59,660. So the presumption under s. 69 of the Act was not available to the ITO. We make it clear that we do not record any opinion whether the assessee was in possession of a sum of Rs. 59,860 at the beginning of the assessment year or not. The Department as well as the assessee will be at liberty to agitate this point when the occasion arises and shall not be deemed to have been debarred by this order from raising the said point in future. 7. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that there was no scope for addition of any amount under s. 69 of the Act as done by the ITO and the AAC. As such, we direct that the addition of Rs. 59,860 as reduced to Rs. 52,360 by the AAC be deleted. 8. As a result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 169 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... hands of each individual legal heir in the assessment. 11. In view of what I have stated above, even though it is not necessary for me to express any opinion with regard to the additions made by the ITO, yet in as much as the matter was raised before me, I would adjudicate upon this issue also. The business of the Brahmaputra Tea Estate has been closed down. It is trite law that the expenditure with regard to a dissolved business shall not be allowable in the previous year. The additions made were, therefore, valid. For statistical purposes, I will treat this appeal as partly allowed. ITA No. 19 (Gau) of 1982 12. The issue raised in this appeal through ground Nos. 2 and 3 are of the same nature as discussed above. For reasons given above, I direct that the income from interest earned from M/s R.G. Saharia Industries would not be assessable in the hands of the AOP though the additions made by the ITO were justified. For statistical purposes, it is also taken as partly allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 168 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... t March, 1981 was directed to be admitted in evidence, the ITO should be given an opportunity of expressing his views thereon. 5. After taking into account the facts as stated above, I feel that the assesses appeal should succeed. The fact that the assessee has agricultural land is not is dispute. He had declared agricultural income form agricultural land in respect of the asst. yr. 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 and the same had been accepted by the department. The quantum of income declared this year form agriculture is rather less than what was declared by the assessee in the subsequent years and what had been accepted by the Revenue. There is, therefore, no rationale in not accepting the assessee plea with regard to the agricultural income in the year under consideration. Taking into account the probabilities of the case. I feel that the assessee claim should have been accepted. The addition made is in the circumstances, deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 167 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... lving this controversy, therefore, it appears that the orders of the authorities below should be set aside and the matter be restored to them to find out as to what amount of capital borrowed by the assessee still remains outstanding and out of it how much capital is relatable to the construction of buildings which have remained with the assessee. Interest payable on such capital should be allowed to the assessee as deduction. For working out of the above claim, I set aside the orders of both the authorities and restore the matter back to the ITO with the direction that he should take into account the facts on record and in the light thereof, he should redetermine the question of allowability of interest under s. 24(1) (vi) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee would, of course, give such details as he thinks necessary to sustain his claim. 8. With the above observations, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter back to the ITO for doing the needful.
-
1984 (2) TMI 166 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... enhancement is intended, a notice to the assessee has to be given so that the assessee could be heard in the matter. Prima facie, the ld. AAC has omitted to give such a notice to the assessee. As this is a condition precedent for passing an order of the ld. AAC as a result of which it is not possible to sustain his order. Accordingly, I have no option in the matter but to set aside his order and direct him to pass a fresh order, after giving to the assessee an opportunity of being heard with regard to the intended effect of his direction, which as noted earlier, might result in the enhancement of the assessee rsquo s total income. 11. In as much as the order of the AAC is being set aside, in its entirety, it will be open to the assessee to canvass all his arguments before the AAC once again. Therefore, I am not expressing any opinion on the other controversy raised before me by the ld. counsel for the assessee. 12. For statistical purpose, I will treat this appeal as allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 165 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... s are paid to an assessee while computing his property income to enable him to meet expenses of the type indicated by the assessee. The computation of the income under the head lsquo property rsquo is not based on actuals. It is a national income which has to be computed in accordance with the various provisions of ss. 23 and 24 of the IT Act, 1961. If the allowance is not mentioned in the aforesaid two sections as deductible while computing the assessee rsquo s income from property, deduction in respect thereof cannot be allowed to the assessee on general principles, as suggested by the assessee. The theory of general principles would be relevant if it is the actual or real income which has to be computed, as in the case of income from business under s. 28. The computation of income under the head lsquo Property rsquo is not of this nature. The assessee rsquo s claim is, therefore, rejected. 8. In the result, I consider this appeal for statistical purposes as partly allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 164 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... s legacy, and as to how there has been a loss therein. The ITO is entitled to be satisfied in this regard. But he cannot refuse to take into account the income or loss arising from such inherited assets and liabilities on the ground that the said income or loss is assessable elsewhere, for, in law, it is not so assessable, unless it can be shown that the assessee alongwith other legal heirs had entered into in a joint enterprise to earn income from the joint legacy left behind by late R. C. Saharia. Whether or not there is a joint enterprise, will have to be ascertained with regard to the facts of the case. The ITO will be entitled to go into this question also while determining as to whether or not the assessee has income or loss from the legacy or from the A. O. P. 5. With these observations, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter back to the ITO for re-determining the question in accordance with the law and the observations made by me above.
-
1984 (2) TMI 163 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... of the Constitution of India who resides in the Municipality of Shillong from any source in the areas covered by Khasi and Jaintia Hills Districts would be exempt from income-tax. 10. Admittedly, in the present case the income derived by the assessee is from areas comprised within Khasi and Jaintia Hills District as it was understood immediately before the day appointed under cl. (b) of s. 2 of the North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. The contention of the ld. Departmental Representative that relief or exemption under cl. (26) of s. 10 was not available to a person residing in the area comprised within the Municipality of Shillong on account of the restrictive provisions of the proviso to sub-para (2) of para 20 of Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India is not correct on the bare reading of the said provisions. The order of the AAC in the circumstances is correct and we accordingly uphold it. 11. In the result, the Departmental rsquo s appeal stands dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 162 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... in respect of his unascertained share in the property bequeathed by his grandfather. This contention was opposed by the authorised representative of the assessee. Under the general law the individual shares of each of several donees under a deed of gift is equal unless it is expressly or impliedly stated otherwise in such a case of gift. It cannot be disputed that under the deed of gift dt. 8th July, 1970 the individual shares of each of the three donees was not specified. It was also not specified that their shares will not be equal. Accordingly the assessee and his two brothers undoubtedly got 1/3rd share each in the property bequeathed by their grandfather and as such we agree with the AAC that the share of the assessee was definite and ascertained being 1/3rd and as such he should be assessed as an individual and not as a BOI. The ITO shall, therefore, make fresh assessments in accordance with s. 26 of the Act. We direct accordingly. 6. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 161 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... , in the original assessment is found to be correct. As such, we uphold the cross objections of the assessee in respect of this year. The ITO could not have directed the charging of interest under s. 215 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee has relied for his submissions on the subject on the following authorities (1) S. A. L. Narayan Raw and Anr. vs. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and Anr. (1965) 57 ITR 149 (SC) (2) Mohammed Kunhi vs. Addl. ITO (1967) 66 ITR 250 (Ker) (3) Shantilal Rawji vs. M. C. Nair, IV ITO-E-Ward, Bombay (1958) 34 ITR 439 (Bom) (4) M. Chokalingam and M. Meyyappan vs. CIT Anr. (1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC). We have gone through the said orders and we find that they support the contention of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the cross objections in respect of the asst. yr. 1975-76 on this point. 9. In the result, the Departmental appeal stand allowed, cross objections for the asst. yr. 1974-75 stands rejected but the cross-objections for the asst. yr. 1975-76 stand allowed.
............
|
