|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 236 Records
-
1985 (8) TMI 149 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... entive bonus is given, though he is an employee of the Corporation for earning the basic salary income, he has to put in efforts in propagating the virtues of insuring lives and securing business which forms the base for earning the inceptive bonus, that thus he was an agent of the Corporation insofar as that sector of his activity was concerned and the incentive bonus is income from profession. We agree with these conclusions reached by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal and since the assessee in this appeal is also a Development Officer of the Corporation and has earned the incentive bonus in the same way as the assessee before the Chandigarh Bench, we would follow the order of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. We also feel that the quantum of expenditure claimed by the assessee is not unreasonable. In the other case also 40 per cent of the expenditure has been allowed. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the AAC. 5. This appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 148 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... 36 of the IT Act and consequently the limit prescribed under s. 36(i)(ii), proviso will not apply. Moreover, we do not agree that the order of High Court in Sivananda Mills Ltd. is distinguishable. That case involved claim for deduction of incentive bonus which was made in addition to the regular bonus as per the Payment of Bonus Act and the question was whether it should be allowed as a deduction under s. 37 of the IT Act. It was held in that case at s. 36(i)(ii) reference to payment made under Bonus Act and incentive bonus or customary bonus in not bonus paid under the payment of bonus Act and therefore, s. 36(i)(ii) of the IT Act has no application. It was held that the incentive bonus paid is an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and it is eligible for deduction under s. 37. The production bonus is not in any way different. In the circumstances, we reject this objection of the Department also. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 147 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee is to be treated as if it were the income of an AOP. Thus, there is no fiction changing the status from what it is under the general principles. The status continues to be that of an individual only. The relevant income or part of relevant income, as elucidated above, would be subject to the maximum rate applicable to an AOP. The application of rate comes into play only after the total income is determined. Deductions under s. 80L are allowed prior to determining the total income. Therefore, since the status is that of individual, deductions under s. 80L would be applied and application made later of the maximum rate applicable to an AOP. (In this case, on the whole of such income tax in other cases it may be only on part of such income, the rest being taxed at normal rates) would make no difference in the allowability of deduction under s. 80L. In each of the cases, the ITO will allow appropriate deduction under s. 80L. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 143 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... interest as untenable ought not to have given a direction to the ITO to apply r. 40(1). Rule 40 gives discretion to reduce or waive interest to the ITO and also to the IAC in certain circumstances. A perusal of the grounds of appeal filed before the CIT (A) shows that several grounds were taken besides the ground relating to levy of interest and therefore the appeal was maintainable before the CIT (A) mdash vide Bihar State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT (84) 43 CTR (Pat) 129 (FB) (1984) 149 ITR 208 (Pat). In view of the specific grounds raised by the Revenue we hold that the CIT (A) was not justified in giving in directions to limit the levy of interest. At the same time we wish to observe that the finding given by the CIT (A) should be taken note of by the ITO for the purpose of exercising discretion under r. 40 when the assessee applies for waiver or reduction of interest charged under s. 217 (1A) as the fact was judicially noticed. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 141 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... 6 that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. In the absence of any positive evidence to prove dishonest, contumacious or fraudulent conduct of the assessee in declaring the cost of construction, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. 12. Thus, after appraising the entire material on record, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly cancelled the penalty order. 13. In view of our finding on merits, it is not necessary to go into the question whether or not the ITO had the jurisdiction to levy penalty on the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 138 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... ulation cannot be denied to the assessee on the simple ground that the entire objects of the trust are reproduced in Form No. 10. On behalf of the Revenue it is contended that the assessee has not specified any particular purpose and therefore, the benefit of accumulation under s. 11(2) is not available to the assessee. 3. We are unable to agree with the Revenue. A reading of s. 11(2) and Form No. 10 clearly shows that the assessee is not required under this provision to specify any particular object of the trust on the purpose for which the accumulation is proposed to be made. The only requirement under the provision is that the unspent portion of the income of the trust can be accumulated for the purpose of the trust. It is clear that the assessee has specified this requirement by enumerating in Form No. 10 the various objects of the trust. Accumulation is therefore only for the purpose of the trust and is permissible under s. 11 (2). 4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 137 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... A) the Department has filed the present appeal. 3. After going through the record and hearing the ld. Representatives of the parties, we do not find any valid reason to disturb the order of the CIT (A). It is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled employed in India. That being so, the house of the assessee situated at Glasgov could not be occupied by him by reason of his employment in India. Hence the assessee was entitled to the relief under s. 23(3) of the IT Act, 1961. There was, therefore, no mistake apparent from record which could be rectified under s. 154. In any case, the question whether the provisions of. s. 23(3) or s. 24(1)(ix) are applicable to the case is debatable and involves investigation of facts and evidence. In such a situation, the ITO could not invoke the provisions of s. 154. Thus, from whatever angle we may view the case, the Department must fail. We, therefore, confirm the impugned order of the CIT (A). 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 136 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... preme Court in the case of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1976) 63 ITR 207 (SC) held likewise. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the appellate authorities have erred interjecting the claim of the assessee and accordingly was reverse the orders of the authorities and direct the ITO to allow the claim made by the assessee in respect of legal expenses incurred for these yeaRs. 8. For the asst. yr. 1980-81 the assessee raised another ground pertaining to addition or Rs. 5,000 representing advertisement and sundry expenses. The disallowance was made by the ITO on the ground that vouchers were not available and some of the expenses did not relate to business. It was confirmed by the CIT (A). At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee did not argue this ground and therefore this ground is not dealt with. 9. In the result the appeal for the asst. yr. 1980-81 is partly allowed while the appeals for 1981-82 and 1982-83 are allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 131 - ITAT JAIPUR
Reassessment, Notice For ... ... ... ... ..... The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. ITO 1993 143 ITR 620 had held that where the income that is finally assessed after issue of notice under section 147(a) read with section 149(1)(a)(ii) is less than Rs. 50,000 the reopening was held to be barred by time and invalid. These judgments are indicative of the fact that an ITO in the guise for making an addition of an amount less than Rs. 50,000 cannot state initially that income that has escaped assessment is more than Rs. 50,000 and obtain some more time which has lapsed otherwise. In the instant case, the notices were issued almost after 13 years and 12 years for the two assessment years in question. The income that is finally added as unexplained income is less than Rs. 50,000. Therefore, the reliance placed by the assessee on the above said judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and, therefore, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the departmental appeals.
-
1985 (8) TMI 130 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... e Court is that valition on the part of the members of the association is an essential ingredient. Here there is no such violation nor is there a need for it at all except the obligation created by the operation of and compulsion of personal law. Futther the Kerala High Court has applied this view in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Suresh Chandram and Ors. I do not want to dwell much upon the order of the ld. Accountant Member on the question of the application of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Balkrishna rsquo s case but all I would say is that the principle laid down in Indira Balkrishna rsquo s case by the Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the case before me as stated earlier in the sense that for lack of proof to show that to co-hires came together voluntarily to form an AOP to produce Income. They are dealing with the property inherited by them. 11. Now the matter will go before the regular bench for decision according to the majority opinion.
-
1985 (8) TMI 129 - ITAT INDORE
Exemption, General ... ... ... ... ..... graph 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, or paragraph 15 of the Part-B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 This shows that the Legislature was aware of the transaction of the status of the former rulers from being sovereigns of their States to citizens of the Indian union. If indeed, it had been the intention of the Legislature to exempt the kind of payment in dispute before us, there would have been evidence in the taxing statute itself, of such intention. There is no such evidence available. It is not possible to read any authority for the exemption claimed, either in the Covenant or in the White Paper relied on by the assessee. The passage from A.C. Sampath Iyengar s The Three New Taxes seems to refer to the right to receive an annual amount as privy purse and not to the amounts already received. Hence, it is of no assistance to the assessee. We decline to interfere. 7 to 1 2. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1985 (8) TMI 128 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Income From Other Sources, Income From House Property, Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... of Rs. 7,200 is not an allowable deduction under section 24. It is only the deduction specified under section 24 that could be allowed in computing the income under the head Income from house property . We agree with the reasons given by the Commissioner for disallowing the sum of Rs. 7,200. Similarly, the sum of Rs. 600 being the audit fees is not allowable as deduction. It does not come under section 80VV of the Act. Thus, the Commissioner was right in directing the ITO to disallow the sum of Rs. 7,200 being legal expenses and Rs. 600 being audit fees. 6. Thus, the Commissioner was wrong in directing the ITO to modify the assessment by disallowing Rs. 15,940 being the interest paid to bank. But he was justified in directing the ITO to disallow the sum of Rs. 7,200 being legal expenses and Rs. 600 being the audit fees. Accordingly, we modify the Commissioner s order and direct the ITO to modify the assessment order accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 127 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Hindu Undivided Family ... ... ... ... ..... The use of the words heirs, executors, administrators and assignees , in the context in which they appear, in our opinion, indicate on the contrary that the gift was to the sons absolutely, the property gifted being both heritable and alienable. There is nothing in the two documents to suggest that the interest transferred to the sons was limited in any way.... The above ratio squarely applies to the instant case. There is nothing to indicate in the will dated 7-8-1969 that the property was given to the families of the three sons. There is nothing to restrict the enjoyment of the property with full rights by the three sons in their individual capacity. Thus, the property has not been given to the HUFs of the three sons under the will dated 7-8-1969. They received the properties in their individual capacity. Hence, the income is assessable in their individual assessments. We reverse the order of the AAC and restore the order of the ITO. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 126 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Penalty, For Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... the case of CIT v. India Sea Foods 1976 105 ITR 708. Another point raised was regarding the law to be applied. The assessee had filed the return in 1975 when the penalty was quantified with reference to the income concealed. In 1976, the law was amended and the penalty will be based on tax involved in the concealed income. Since there was no tax at all involved in the concealed income, i.e., even after the additions there was only a loss, it was argued following the decision of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. S.M. Som v. ITO 1980 19 CTR (Trib.) 9 that no penalty could be levied. We find that the Hyderabad Bench has followed the ratio laid down by the Cuttack Bench in that case in some cases. However, we do not offer any opinion on these two contentions raised by the assessee because we have given a finding on facts that there is no concealment. 21. The departmental appeal stands dismissed. Since the cross-objection was withdrawn, it also stands dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 125 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Investment Allowance, Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... he meaning of the expression manufacture . The Supreme Court in the case of Dy. CAIT v. Palampadam Plantations Ltd. AIR 1969 SC 930, had quoted with approval the meaning of the expression in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which stated produce means to bring forth, bring into being or existence---to bring (a thing) into existence from its raw materials or elements . The Supreme Court has also referred to Webster s International English Dictionary wherein the verb produce is given the meaning of to bring forward, beget, etc. It is impossible to use this expression for the projection of a picture on a screen. Therefore, the assessee does not produce anything. Apart from this, as Shri Radhakrishna Murthy had pointed out, the Eleventh Schedule prohibits investment allowance to cinematographic films and projectors. If that is so, then a cinema theatre which is using projectors will certainly not be entitled to investment allowance. 15. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 124 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t nature has come in the lungs of the assessee and he has been put in a physical disability by which his working capacity has been reduced and the assessee is entitled for that deduction under s. 80U. The above order squarely supports the assessee rsquo s case. The ld. Departmental Representative drew my attention to Circular No. 246 dt. 20th Sept., 1978 wherein for guidance a list of certain diseases were mentioned for the purpose of s. 80U. But this circular has been modified by a later Circular No. 375 dt. 22nd Jan., 1984 wherein it has been held that the list of diseases mentioned in Circular 246 is only illustrative and not exhaustive and the facts and circumstances of each case will have to be gone into in determining whether the requirements of s. 80U are fully satisfied. Thus no reliance can be placed on the Circular No. 246. In my view, the AAC was justified in allowing the relief under s. 80U in both these years. 4. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 123 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... re made there and collection was also effected within the tribal area and not at Gauhati. The assessee s ld. counsel reled on the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case reported in Shoorji Vallabh Das and Co. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 774 (SC). 12. I have heard both the sides and having regard to the facts of the case and the rival contentions and keeping the view the ratio enunciated by the Hon ble Supreme Court as aforesaid I am of the view that the claim of the assessee was justified. No addition should be made on this score also. 13. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the issue involved and as discussed by me in the preceding paragraphs, I find that in respect of the tarpaulin business, certain facts are required to be brought on record for fresh disposal by the ITO as directed earlier. Other grounds of appeal on other points by the Revenue are dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 122 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... we perused the orders of the authorities below for our consideration. It is seen that the penalty in both the years have been imposed as explanation of the assessee was not accepted. In fact, the penalty has been imposed for non-filing of Form No, 6 for the belated period which was not covered by the first application for extension of time. Actually, the ITO has also expressed his surprises as to why the accounts could not be finalised in time. There is no clear finding that the cause shown by the assessee for the delay in filing of the returns, was not due to any reasonable cause. 6. After considering the facts of the case and the rival contentions made by both the side, we are of the view that in the circumstances of the ease as narrated above there was no justification for the imposition of penalty for both the years. The facts of the case did not warrant of penalty. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are cancelled. 7. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 121 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee to file returns for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1974-75 by 15th March 1977. It was further clarified in this letter that if returns were not made by that date, assessment would be summarily made. This fact also indicates that it was made clear by the WTO that in case returns were not filed by that date, assessments would be made summarily. The fact that the letter dt. 4th March 1977, was submitted by the assessee long after the initiation of proceedings under s. 17 is of no consequence. The fact remains that the assessee applied for extension of time for furnishing returns and that his request was acceded to by the WTO by allowing him to file returns for the four assessment years upto 15th March 1977. As the returns for the four assessments were filed on 16th March 1977 in our opinion, for his reason also no penalty was imposable for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1974-75. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in these Departmental appeals which we hereby dismiss.
-
1985 (8) TMI 120 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... argeable to income-tax. The finding recorded by the CIT (A) for these two years had already been mentioned above. Nothing was pointed out to show that the decision of the CIT (A) for these two assessment years suffered from any flaw or infirmity. The impugned order of the CIT (A) shows that for the asst. yr. 1977-78 the surplus was less than 25 per cent of the income of the trust. The CIT (A) further found that the trust fulfilled the obligation laid down under the IT Act, and so for the asst. yr. 1977-78, the income is not chargeable to tax. For the asst. yr. 1978-79, it was held that the assessee is a public charitable trust and has fulfilled the requirements of law and so, the assessment has to be made on the assessee as a public charitable trust. No attempt was made to assail these findings recorded by the CIT (A) for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 and we, therefore, confirm the same. 18. In the result, all the three Departmental appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
............
|
