|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 280 Records
-
1984 (2) TMI 160 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... the order of the AAC is incorrect and should be set aside. On the other hand it was pointed out by the authorised representative of the assessee that the AAC decided the appeal before him in accordance with the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No. 149 (Gau) of 1976-77 by which this case is covered. 6. On consideration of the materials on record, facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that this case is covered by the decision in the aforesaid case and in accordance with the reasons given in the said appeal, we are of the opinion that the AAC was correct in passing the impugned order. In the instant case, there is no material on record on the basis of which he could believe that the transfer was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of the liability of the assessee for capital gains. We are not able to pursuade ourselves to hold that the AAC was incorrect in his decision. So the impugned order is confirmed. 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 159 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... with training expenses of a partner or employee of a firm. The Supreme Court case reported in (1961) 41 ITR 796 (SC) dealt with expenses incurred for shifting of a factory from one place to another place. As such, in our opinion, these two decision are not applicable to the facts of the case under examination. The cases relied upon by the authorised representative for the assessee, namely, (1969) 71 ITR 752 (Guj) and (1979) 13 CTR (Bom) 209 (1980) 123 ITR 538 (Bom) deal with such training expenses and categorically lay down that such training expenses are revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. 11. On a carefull consideration of the materials on record, facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the training expenses of Rs. 47,568 was revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure as held by the ITO and the AAC. Accordingly we direct the ITO to recompute the income of the assessee in accordance with our finding. 12. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1984 (2) TMI 158 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... ch computation is in excess of 10 per cent, he will restrict the annual letting value to 10 per cent. Insofar as the ITO has not done the normal computation, it is not possible to note if the normal computation was less than 10 per cent. If it be so, there is no question of adopting 10 per cent of other income as done by him. Therefore, it is not possible to restore the ITO s order also. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of both the authorities below on this point and restore the matter back to the ITO with the direction that he would recompute the annual letting value of the self-occupied portion in accordance with law as explained by the above. 16. For statistical purposes, the departmental appeals are treated as allowed. 17. The cross-objections in support of the aforesaid appeals merely seek to support the orders of the learned AAC. Inasmuch as I have reversed the orders of the learned AAC, I see no merit in the cross-objections also. They are also, therefore, rejected.
-
1984 (2) TMI 157 - ITAT DELHI-E
Assessment Year, House Property, Market Value, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... which he had purchased the said property at 8-10-1971, i.e., the three days before the execution and the registration of the present document. We are of the considered opinion that these facts provide intrinsic evidence more so when the assessee has not exercised his right of foreclosure and has accepted Rs. 5,000 out of Rs. 10,000 from Manik Chand, that the transaction recorded in the said deed is nothing but a mortgage with conditional sale as defined in section 58(c). That being the position, the assessee is right when he urged before us that the mortgage debt in question and not the value of the said property of Topi Bazar in Lashkar should be included in the net wealth of the assessee for each of the year under consideration. We, therefore, direct the WTO to include Rs. 10,000 representing the mortgage debt in question in the net wealth of the assessee for each of the years under consideration. 4. and 5. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1984 (2) TMI 156 - ITAT DELHI-D
Capital Gains, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... , being that the same co-owners became partners in a firm and brought one asset as capital contribution and the said asset was contributed as capital in the same ratio as they held as co-owners and the profits/loss sharing ratio in the firm remained the same. The Gujarat High Court s case in the case of Kartikey V. Sarabhai becomes distinguishable and we hold, accordingly. 9. In the case of Smt. Dhirajben R. Amin, the facts are at par with the case of Kartikey V. Sarabhai, hence, for the same reason, this case also becomes distinguishable. 10. The net result is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the work out of capital gains in the hands of the assessees stands deleted in toto since there is no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47), qua the capital contribution of the assessees as partners in the firm, Universal Book Stall, Delhi, and, qua the immovable property, 5-Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. All the three appeals succeed and stand allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 155 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... issued on the basis of the income of Rs. 39,580 determined on4th March, 1975in regular assessment for the asst. yr. 1972-73. But it was issued on the basis of income shown in the revised return filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1973-74 on17th Sept., 1973. Hence the notice is clearly invalid. The second notice dt.29th Aug., 1975is also invalid as the income shown and the assessment year shown did not tally with each other Rs. 57,130 is the loss shown by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75. It is not an income. Further, for the asst. yr. 1975-76 the income returned and Rs. 64,60. The said notice also does not satisfy the requirements of s. 209(1)(a)(i). In these circumstances, the assessee was not obliged to file estimate under s. 212(3A). The alleged failure of the assessee is justified. No penalty is leviable under s. 273(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we delete the penalty of Rs. 3,000. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 154 - ITAT DELHI-B
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... 113 ITR 443. 11. The last argument of Shri R.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the assessee, that section 18B does not specifically bar or waive the right of appeal as in section 25 of the Act need not detain us further. Whereas in the case of section 25 the assessee has to make his option right in the beginning, section 18B can be availed of at any stage of the proceedings. Though section 18B covers a limited subject regarding penalty, the power given therein is extraordinary and unlimited. The Parliament has given exclusive power of waiver or reduction of penalty under section 18B to the Government which shall be exercised through the Commissioner. Once the power is exercised, the order is final and cannot be called into question by any Court or any authority. 12. For the reasons fully given by us, the appeals of the assessee are not maintainable and have to be dismissed. As such the question of merit need not be considered by us. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 153 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... bnormal increase in the receipts for the last month, before, the date for filing the estimate. Even without, therefore, taking into account the assessee s contentions about bad debts and the earlier years receipts about sale of vehicles, he could not be charged with realising his full profit position at the time of making the estimate. Levy of penalty is justified only if there is a contumacious conduct. If the assessee is in such a mental condition which justifies a way of thinking not leading to contumacy, he cannot be visited with penalty. On the facts of the present case, the assessee cannot be charged with deliberately anticipating a low income or loss and not making an estimate on that score. Both on legal and the factual points of view, therefore. I find no justification to sustain the penalty. I agree with the ld. Accountant Member that the penalty be cancelled and the appeal be allowed. The matter will now go back to the original Bench for disposal according to law.
-
1984 (2) TMI 152 - ITAT DELHI
Assessment Year, Question Of Law, Rule 1BB, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the rule with the section, it automatically follows that the rule cannot be so interpreted as to give a concessional value for valuation purposes after a particular date but not before that date. This is so because whatever rules are made under the rule making power in respect of section 7 should apply to all except where specific retrospective operation is granted for which specific provision exists in section 40(3)(sic) of the Act. The retrospective operation of the rule, therefore, is justified on the above ground. This, however, was not the point on which the Tribunal decided the original appeals. The submission by the learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, that the general provision of law which are so obvious in connection with the interpretation would make a reference academic, cannot be accepted. Hence, I agree with the learned Accountant Member. The matter may go back to the original Bench which heard the case for proper disposal of the reference applications.
-
1984 (2) TMI 151 - ITAT DELHI
Advance Tax, Appellate Orders, Assessment Year, Levy Of Penalty, Orders Passed, Regular Assessment
-
1984 (2) TMI 150 - ITAT COCHIN
Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... at an assessee can claim exemption under this provision only with regard to one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee, that the godowns belonging to the firm cannot be said to be a house and that the claim is also not sustainable as the WTO has been directed to follow rule 2. It is found that the appeals filed by Sailesh on this aspect with regard to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80 have already been allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 21-6-1983, following the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L. Gulabchand Jhaback v. WTO WT Appeal Nos. 372 and 373 (Mad.) of 1979 . Following the same we uphold the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 5(1)(iv). 39. In the result, WT Appeal No. 13 (Coch.) of 1982 by the assessee is allowed in full. WT Appeal Nos. 3 to 6, 8 to 11 and 15 (Coch.) of 1982 by the department are dismissed and WT Appeal Nos. 7, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 18 (Coch.) of 1982 by the department are allowed in part.
-
1984 (2) TMI 149 - ITAT COCHIN
Capital Gains, Cost Of Acquisition, Cost Of Improvement, Route Permits ... ... ... ... ..... een pointed out by the Commissioner (Appeals) that, although the assessee put in new buses after the acquisition of the route, the business was running at a loss during the two assessment years during which the assessee operated the buses. But the matter has not been investigated from the angle indicated above. Further, in view of the finding recorded by us earlier that a portion of the sale proceeds is attributable to the route permit, a reasonable allocation of the sale proceeds between the buses and the route permit has also to be done. We are, therefore, compelled to restore the matter to the ITO for framing a fresh assessment according to law and the observations above and with particular reference to the question whether the assessee has improved the value of the route permits after it acquired the route and what will be the reasonable value to be allocated for the route permit. Ordered accordingly. The appeal will be treated as allowed in part for statistical purposes.
-
1984 (2) TMI 148 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessment Year, Purchase Tax, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... also actually paid later. It was held by the High Court that the assessee cannot claim deduction of the amount during the accounting period as under the law obtaining during the period the assessee was not liable to pay the tax. It was also held that the assessee can claim deduction of the tax paid in the year of payment on the basis of the actual payment. This will also show that the question whether the assessee can claim deduction of the amount will only depend upon whether, under the law as obtaining during the relevant accounting period, the assessee was liable to pay the amount. 11. Applying the ratio of the decisions mentioned above to the present case, we hold that the claim for deduction of the amount by the assessee has to be upheld. Our attention was not drawn to any decision which says that the claim can be disallowed merely on the ground that the amount may have subsequently to be brought to tax under section 41. 12. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 147 - ITAT COCHIN
Carry Forward, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... no set off can be allowed. In our view, an assessee whose assessment for the earlier assessment year was not completed by the ITO cannot be in a worse position. If the loss has not been computed in the earlier assessment year and if the same is not likely to be computed in the earlier assessment year as the assessment is barred by limitation, it should be open to the ITO doing the assessment for the subsequent year to determine the loss for the earlier assessment year and to allow the set off. This of course will be subject to the condition that the loss for the earlier assessment year can be determined only if the assessee had filed the return under section 139. As, in the present case, it is admitted that the assessee had filed a return under section 139, we would direct the ITO to determine the loss on the basis of the return and to allow set off of the same in the assessment year under appeal according to the provisions of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 146 - ITAT COCHIN
Agricultural Land, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ch a purpose contained in the lease deed as well as in its memorandum of association been progressively converting the forest land into plantation area for a period of number of years. The lands that have been sold by the assessee could not in actuality be converted into agricultural lands due to paucity of funds and lack of finance with the assessee. But this only affected the assessee s capacity to carry out its intention, namely, converting these forest lands into plantation. The intention of the assessee is clear in respect of the impugned land that was to convert these lands into plantation or agricultural lands. It must, therefore, be said that the assessee had set apart these lands for agriculture. It would, therefore, follow that these lands are agricultural lands in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in V. Venugopala Varma Rajah s case. We would, therefore, uphold the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. These three appeals are dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 145 - ITAT COCHIN
Building Tax, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ecurring levy. 7. The learned departmental representative also relied upon paragraph 29 of the memorandum explaining the provisions of the relevant Finance Bill, 1968. After stating that it has been decided to allow deduction of the whole of the taxes levied by the local authority, regardless of the date of completion of the construction, it is stated Further, it is proposed to provide that any tax levied by the State Government in respect of the property (e.g., the urban land tax levied in Madras) will be allowable as a deduction in computing the income from house property. It was pointed out that the tax levied in Madras State was a recurring levy. We are not impressed with this argument as the Madras levy was only cited as an example and it is insufficient, in our opinion, to hold that the intention was to exclude only a recurring levy. 8. In view of what is stated above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the AAC. 9. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 144 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
... ...
... ... ..... of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia vs. N.C. Upadhya (1980) 14 CTR (Bom) 20 (1980) 124 ITR 799 (Bom) wherein it has been held that r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957 prescribing the beak-up method for valuing unquoted equity shares is directory, and not and not mandatory. The observation of the ld. author, Sampath Iyengar, as reproduced herein before, cannot be lost sight of. As has been observed by him, in reality, as an instance the method prescribed by the Board by r. 1D as a mandatory one is only one of the several methods for the valuation of shares, the other important methods are to capitalise the actual yield of dividend, or to take the market quotations of similar shares which are quoted on the Stock Exchange. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the order of the AAC does not require any interference. We accordingly upheld the order of the AAC on this score. 7. Both the appeals by the Revenue thus fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 143 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
... ...
... ... ..... carrying on business. See. 41 of the IT Act was applicable to the case, and, as the shares of the persons on whose behalf the income was received by the assessee as trustee were determinate, the assessment on the assessee should be made as a separate assessment for each of the persons on whose behalf the income was received by the assessee. The cases relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee also support the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid case. That being the position, it has to be held that the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of s. 263 of the Act on the facts of the present case. We therefore, set aside the order of the CIT and restore the order of the ITO for each of and three assessment years under consideration. In view of what we have discussed above we consider it unnecessary to discuss the cases relied on by the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. In the result, all the three appeals by the assessee succeed and are allowed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 142 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Valuation Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... e provisions of rule 1D. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia wherein it is has been held that rule 1D prescribing the break-up method for valuing unquoted equity shares is directory and not mandatory. The observation of the learned author, Sampath Iyengar, as reproduced hereinbefore, cannot be lost sight of. As has been observed by him, in reality, as an instance the method prescribed by the Board by rule 1D as a mandatory one is only one of the several methods for the valuation of shares the other important methods are to capitalise the actual yield of dividend, or to take the market quotations of similar shares which are quoted on the stock exchange. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the order of the AAC does not require any interference. We, accordingly, upheld the order of the AAC on this score. 7. Both the appeals by the revenue, thus, fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1984 (2) TMI 141 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
His Net Wealth, Income Tax, Valuation Date, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ing completed within six months from the date of the filing of the return. This provision is in accordance with the formulation enunciated in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. s case and H.H. Setu Parvati Bayi s case by their Lordships of the Hon ble Supreme Court. 12. It is true that the advance tax demanded of an assessee under section 210 or estimated by him as payable under section 212 of the 1961 Act, etc., is liable to be paid as if it is regular tax demanded but the nature of this payment cannot be lost sight of namely, that it is an on account payment and the quantum of the excess payment, if any (i.e., refund), will be determinable on the same date on which the debt on account of which it was paid. 13. For the reasons given above, I hold, as my learned brother did, that the refunds due to the assessee on account of excess payments of income-tax in respect of dates falling before the valuation dates in question will be includible in the assessee s total wealth.
............
|
