|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 236 Records
-
1985 (8) TMI 119 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... not belong to him. It amounts to a debt or a liability in the hands which he owes to the State Govt. as under the decree of the High Court the amount received by him is refundable to the Sate Govt. Liability to wealth tax arises out of the ownership of the asset and not otherwise. Mere possession unaccompanied by the right of ownership of property would not bring the property within the definition net wealth for it would not be an asset belonging to the assessee. In view of this clear position. We have no doubt in our minds that the property in the amount in question does not vest in the assessee and, therefore, the money received by him cannot be held to be an asset belonging to him. In this view of the matter, the amount in question cannot be included in his net wealth and cannot be brought to tax. 12. In view of what has been said above we maintain the consolidated order of the AAC on the point. 13. In the result, all the Departmental appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 118 - ITAT GAUHATI
Assets, Pendente Lite Interest ... ... ... ... ..... . It amounts to a debt or a liability in his hands which he owes to the State Government as under the decree of the High Court the amount received by him is refundable to the State Government. Liability to wealth-tax arises out of the ownership of the asset and not otherwise. Mere possession unaccompanied by the right of ownership of property would not bring the property within the definition of net wealth for it would not be an asset belonging to the assessee. In view of this clear position, we have no doubt in our minds that the property in the amount in question does not vest in the assessee and, therefore, the money received by him cannot be field to be an asset belonging to him. In this view of the matter, the amount in question cannot be included in his net wealth and cannot be brought to tax. 12. In view of what has been said above, we maintain the consolidated order of the AAC on the point. 13. In the result, all the departmental appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-C
Cash Credits, Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... nt. Therefore, the departmental appeals fail. 5. In the assessee s appeal, the only question raised relates to the disallowance of 50 per cent of the expenses debited to the profit and loss account. The assessee debited an expenditure of Rs. 12,528 in the profit and loss account for the assessment year 1972-73. The ITO found that the assessee was not maintaining any vouchers nor there was any other evidence to establish these expenses. Therefore, he disallowed 50 per cent of the expenses amounting to Rs. 6,264. 6. In appeal, the disallowance was confirmed by the learned AAC. 7. After hearing the learned representatives on both the sides, we are of the view that no exception could be taken to the above disallowance since the assessee had not maintained any vouchers nor any other evidence was produced to justify that the expenditure was entirely admissible. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the department, as well as the appeal filed by the assessee fail and are dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... ons have been made by the WTO. Thus, no uniform practice has been followed and the value has been adopted on different basis in different years. In those circumstances it cannot be said that in the case of the other co-partners the yield method was being unformly followed. In fact, here we are concerned with a matter of principle and a question of law and not merely a factual valuation of a property or an asset. In such circumstances, the decision of thePunjaband Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswant Rai does not help the assessee. When a question of law is raised before the Tribunal in a particular case in a particular year, it has to be decided in accordance with the legal provisions and the decision of the Court and any earlier decision given by the tax authorities cannot be the guideline for this purpose. The fourth issue is also, therefore, decided, accordingly. 21. We, therefore, uphold the orders of the WTO in all the three cases and allow the departmental appeals.
-
1985 (8) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... ia were similar. On the basis of the above, it has been contended by Shri Bhuraria that the AAC had no justification in assessing an income of Rs. 1,079 on account of perquisite in the shape of accommodation granted on concessional rate. 3. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Bensal, ld. Departmental Representative, has supported the order passed by the AAC. 4. Inasmuch as we are satisfied that the provisions of Rent Control Act were applicable to the premises situate in Gwalior Rayon Colony which were partly let out to the employees of Gwalior Rayon and partly to the outsiders and also on account of the facts that in respect of a similar accommodation the rent controller of Gwalior had fixed the standard rent at Rs. 30 p.m., we do not see any justification for the assessment of any perquisite in the shape of the accommodation allegedly provided on concessional rent. The order of the AAC is, therefore, disapproved and the assessment of Rs. 1,079 is vacated. 5. The appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 114 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... sed return for the asst. yr. 1975-76 on 7th Dec., 1977 1. Opening stock materials and work in progress Rs. 14,900 2. Opening stock of finished poles Rs. 83,000 3. Materials purchased Rs. 91,876 4. Depreciation Rs. 29,527 5. Closing stock of poles Rs. 33,430 6. Sales Rs. 2,29,710 By these figures, it cannot be said that the assessee filed the revised returns for the earlier assessment years showing the additional amounts attributable to those years as contended by him before the CIT(A) and he cannot say that these additional amounts have been assessed and that if Rs. 4,54,762 is added in the asst. yr. 1978-79 it amounts to double taxation. Similar is the position with the earlier asst. yr. 1976-77 and 1977-78. Thus there is no double taxation at all. 9. For the these reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ITO is justified in making the addition of Rs. 4,54,762 in the assessment for the year 1978-79. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 113 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... r) relied on by the Departmental Representative is distinguishable as that is a case relating tothe gift o goodwill and also claim of exemption under s. 5(1) (xiv) which is not the position in the instant case before us. The decision in M. K. Kuppuraj vs. CGT (1984) 38 CTR (Mad) 314 (1985) 153 ITR (Mad) 481, relied on by the Departmental Representative is clearly distinguishable as in that case the father relinquished his right for future profits by 8 and conferring a benefit in favour of the minors to the extent of 8 per cent who are were admitted to the benefits of partnership. In that case there was no contribution of capital by the minors who were admitted to the benefit of partnership Hence that case is distinguishable. In our view, since the incoming partner Sri.Ramesh Kumar Pai was contributed capital and also is a working partner, there is adequate consideration and no gift is involved. We cancel the gift tax assessment order. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 112 - ITAT COCHIN
Reassessment, Non Disclosure Of Primary Facts ... ... ... ... ..... on that even if it cannot be sustained under section 147(a) it can be considered under section 147(b) if it is within limitation. This contention will not survive as we have held that neither section 147(a) nor section 147(b) is applicable for reopening the assessment in this case. The decision of the Madras High Court in M. A. Murugappan v. CWT 1985 153 ITR 626 relied on by the departmental representative is distinguishable. In that case, the audit party merely brought to the notice of the ITO the note given by the assessee along with the return claiming to be a resident but not ordinarily resident. The facts of that case are, thus, entirely on different ground and that case has no application to the facts of the instant case. 6. Thus, in out view, the reassessment made in this case cannot be sustained either under section 147(a) or under section 147(b). The AAC was perfectly justified in cancelling the reassessment order. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 111 - ITAT COCHIN
Deduction, Profit And Gains From Newly Established Undertakings ... ... ... ... ..... risdiction to invoke section 263 and we uphold his action in invoking section 263. 13. But so far as the drawbacks to which reference is made by the Commissioner are concerned, the full facts are not available. It is not known whether it is in respect of the excise duty on the packing materials collected from the manufacturer and whether the customs department has given refund as customs duty with reference to the excise duty collected on the packing materials. No doubt, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. s case is in favour of the assessee so far as the drawbacks are concerned. But in the assessee s case the facts have to be enquired. Hence, to that extent we direct the ITO to make proper enquiries on this point and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. To that extent the order of the Commissioner is modified and in other respects we uphold his order. 14. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed in part.
-
1985 (8) TMI 110 - ITAT COCHIN
Business Income, Year In Which Taxable, Capital Or Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... ssessment year 1975-76 on 7-12-1977 1. Opening stock of materials and work in Rs. progress 14,900 2. Opening stock of finished poles 83,000 3. Materials purchased 91,876 4. Depreciation 29,527 5. Closing stock of poles 33,430 6. Sales 2,29,710 By these figures, it cannot be said that the assessee filed the revised returns for the earlier assessment years showing the additional amounts attributable to those years as contended by him before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he cannot say that these additional amounts have been assessed and that if Rs. 4,54,762 is added in the assessment year 1978-79 it amounts to double taxation. Similar is the position with the earlier assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. Thus, there is no double taxation at all. 9. For all these reasons and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we hold that the ITO is justified in making the addition of Rs. 4,54,762 in the assessment for the year 1978-79. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 109 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... tly, contrary view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Varma which is binding on us as well as the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gautam Sarabhai s case. Further, section 45 clearly provides that the amount worked out under section 54 is not to be deemed to be the income of the assessee and after allowing the exemption under section 54 only the capital gain has to be computed. So, it is only thereafter the question of deduction under section 80T would arise. This issue did not come up for consideration in the decision of the Madras High Court. Hence, it is distinguishable. 6. Thus, in our view, it is only after computing the capital gains under section 48 and after allowing the exemption under section 54 the deduction under section 80T can be allowed. The computation of capital gains made by the ITO is perfectly in order. The appeal filed by the assessee thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 108 - ITAT COCHIN
Firm, Registration, Entitlement To ... ... ... ... ..... tners in the partnership deed dated 31-3-1949. The contention that the rectification deed dated 17-9-1955 clarifies the position and registration should be granted was not accepted. The above ratio equally applies to the instant case. Thus, the deed of agreement dated 27-3-1980, executed after the close of the accounting years cannot be taken into account for these two assessment years, and that will not govern the two years. The decision of the Supreme Court in Mandyala Govindu and Co. s case does not help the assessee as the point relating to the specification of shares in the losses in the partnership deed was not decided though the conflict of view on that was noticed. That decision was considered by the Kerala High Court in Best Automobiles case. Thus, in our view, the assessee is not entitled for registration as there is no specification of shares in the losses in the partnership deed. We uphold the order of the AAC. 4. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 107 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... uced the addition to Rs. 2,000 for both the periods. In our opinion, these ad hoc additions made by the ITO and partly sustained by the AAC would not lead to the conclusion that there were suppressed profits which have not been distributed. Even on this account, we do not find any merit in the appeal by the revenue for granting registration by the AAC. 21. So far as the second period of interregnum is concerned, the ITO has held that there were no profits. We have already held that this period is to be treated as a separate unit of assessment. This will., therefore, not affect the grant of registration for the two periods. In view of the above discussions we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the AAC granting registration to the firm. We are, however, unable to sustain his order in clubbing the income of all the three periods. 22. In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and that by the a is allowed. The submissions of the intervenes are also rejected.
-
1985 (8) TMI 106 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... hands of both the firm started by the former and completed by the second one. It is apparent that the outgoing partners were paid sum of Rs. 66,000 each which was on account of future profits. Since the issue is covered by Punjab and Haryana High Court decision as narrated above in the case of Kartar Singh Dugal, the IAC(Asst.) was justified in granting the relief to the assessee in 154 proceedings and the CIT was not justified in resorting to s. 263 proceedings because once there is a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that is binding as per Mr. Kansal s case narrated above on authorities, and theory of two opinions on the issue would not make it debatable because of the judgment of the High Court of the State in which assessee is based. 19. In the result, dismissing the two facets pertaining to legal issues in the appeal of the assessee pertaining to jurisdiction and merger, we accept the contention of the assessee on merit and, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 105 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Appealable Orders, Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... opportunity was given to the assessee to show cause as to why interest should not be charged and thereby the ITO had no occasion to exercise his discretion under rule 40 read with section 215(4). 5. Once the appeal is held maintainable, the appellate authority is ceased of the matter and is entitled to consider it on merit if there are sufficient facts on record for doing so. While disposing of the appeal, the appellate authority has same power as those of the original authority. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, could do what the ITO could do for the purpose of assessment. In this connection, reference may be made to the observations of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Lalit Prasad Rohini Kumar at p. 615. 6. Coming to the facts of the case, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has properly exercised discretion under rule 40 in waiving the interest. Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, maintained. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 104 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ated from its context it must be viewed in its whole context, the title, the preamble and all the other enacting parts of the statute. Vide CET v. Darshan Surendra Parekh 1968 69 ITR 683 (SC). 4. Thus, the portion of the office premises where the machinery has been installed for industrial purpose was no more office premises and, therefore, the said machinery cannot be made exception to the investment allowance. Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, confirmed on this point. 5. While disposing of the second point it appears that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked the provisions of sections 80A(2) and 80B(5) of the Act. Admittedly, the total income of the assessee was nil. The assessee was, therefore, not entitled to deduction of Rs. 3,501 under section 80VV. Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, reversed on this point and that of the ITO is maintained. Consequently, Rs. 3,501 stand disallowed. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 103 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Penalty, Interpretation Of Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... that this is not a case of casus omissus as has been stated by the Commissioner (Appeals). In our opinion, the default under section 140A(3) starts from the day prior to the filing of the return and not before that. We find support for this conclusion of ours from the decisions of the Supreme Court cited earlier. Hence, we vacate the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since he has not considered the appeal of the assessee on merits, we restore the appeal to his file for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law and our observations made above after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard both to the assessee as well as the ITO. 9. Coming to the cross-objection filed by the assessee, we are not satisfied with the reason given for the delay in filing the same and so we reject the same as time barred. 10. In the result, the departmental appeal may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes while the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine.
-
1985 (8) TMI 102 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... ness within the meaning of section 28(iv) and consequently the amounts realised on sale or transfer of import entitlements were business income liable to tax. No ruling of any other High Court, which has taken a contrary view was cited before us by the assessee s learned counsel, Shri Dastur. We, therefore, follow, with respect, the rulings of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court, the Hon ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon ble Bombay High Court and hold that the profit on sale of import entitlements obtained by the assessee directly in the course of business constituted profits and gains of business and these profits were liable to tax. It is not the assessee s case that the addition on this account made by the ITO and upheld in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) for both the assessment years has not been correctly worked out. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. 8. The appeals filed by the assessee-company fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 101 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Capital, Computation Of ... ... ... ... ..... amounts were, therefore, merely provisions as rightly described by the assessee-company also in its balance sheet and not reserves as claimed by the assessee-company before the lower authorities and before us. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that these two amounts of provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances were mere provisions, which could not be treated as reserves and consequently, could not be included in the capital computation for the purpose of determining the surtax liability under the Act. On this issue, therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) appears to be incorrect and is hereby reversed. 7. Before we close, we would like to place on record our deep appreciation of the very able manner in which both, the learned departmental representative, Shri Mahadeshwar, as well as the assessee s learned counsel, Shri Dastur, put forward their respective arguments. 8. The appeal filed by the revenue succeeds and is hereby allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 100 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... ot show these amounts in question as current accounts in the balance sheet, it is clear that the assessee company never treated them as current accounts. 28. I, therefore held that- (i) All the credits in the account involved in these appeals cannot be described as current accounts. (ii) Even as current accounts, all the credits therein fall within the definition of deposit under s. 40A (8) Explanation (b). (iii) The definition of deposit is so explicit and unambiguous that it is not permissible to take the aid of speech of the finance Minister, the Memorandum explaining the purview of the Finance Bill 1975 or to invoke mischief rule for the interpretation of statutes. I. S. Nigam- I agree with my learned brother. ORDER UNDER SEC. 255(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT By the Tribunal In view of the majority decision, the appeals by the assessee for asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 (I. T. A. Nos. 3020 and 3021/Bom/1981) by M/s Kaloomal Shorimal Sachdev Rangwalla Pvt. Ltd. are dismissed.
............
|
