|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 190 Records
-
1989 (10) TMI 90 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... venue nature and, therefore, taxable. 29. After careful consideration of the rival submissions we admit the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Similar issue came before the Special bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indo Jawa and Co referred to above, where ground of appeal was ordered to be admitted by the Special Bench Respectfully following the judgment of Spl. Bench, the additional ground of appeal is admitted. 30. So far as the merits of the additional ground of appeal are concerned, we are of the opinion that the issue should be restored to the file of the ITO who should bring the relevant facts on record and then determine the issue in tune with the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of in tune with the order of the Special bench of he Tribunal in the case of Gadore Tools (India) Pvt Ltd. relied upon by the assessee 31. In the result the Revenue s appeal in ITA No. Is dismissed and ITA No. 894 and Co. No. 15/86 are partly allowed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 89 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... during the immediately preceding four financial years. This fact, therefore, could not have been specifically mentioned in the said application. To highlight the fact of residence of the assessee in India during the financial year 1979-80, M/s Ericcsson India Ltd. made special mention of this fact in their letter dt.26th March, 1980with which the said application was sent for approval of the Govt. On these facts, it cannot be said that the facts regarding residence of the assessee during the four financial years immediately preceding the accounting period relevant to the asst. yr. 1981-82 under consideration was not available with the Govt. of India and, therefore, there could not be any question of waiver of the condition. In our opinion, therefore, there was conscious waiver of this condition before granting the approval by the Deptt. of Electronics. We find no justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 88 - ITAT DELHI
Deductions, Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area ... ... ... ... ..... rectors, held on 12-6-1984 which read as follows Resolved that keeping of a Guest House of the company at B-9, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 11,000 per month for a period of thirty months be and is hereby approved. 16. After hearing the learned representatives on both the sides, though the resolution mentioned that the above premises would be kept as a guest house, the fact that it continued to be the registered office of the assessee company and that the Board s Meetings were being held there, could not be ruled out. Keeping in view this fact that it was declared as a registered office of the assessee, we think the entire purpose of taking on rent this premises could not be regarded as for a guest house even though it was so described in the Minutes. We think allowance of 50 thereof for the purpose of business other than as guest house appears to be reasonable. We direct accordingly. 17. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 87 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment Year, Income Tax Act, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, commensurate with the requirements of marriage and the status of the family and the net wealth it possessed. The karta s action, therefore, in setting apart a sum of Rs. 2,50,000, both on facts and in law, was fully justified. In fact this aspect of this issue is not in dispute. 20. In our considered opinion, the fiction in income-tax law and wealth-tax law does not apply to such moral and legal obligations as enjoined upon the Hindu father as karta and coparcener of the joint family. Therefore, on the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason why the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 should be included in the net wealth of the assessee or for that matter any accretion thereto should be treated as income of the joint family. We, therefore, reverse the orders of the authorities below and direct that the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee for each of the years under appeal. 21. In the result both the appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 86 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Reopening Assessment, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee on record and the ld. ITO s action was based on mere change of opinion. We fully concur and endorse these observations of the ld. first appellate authority made in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. 14. The ld. Departmental Representative had made mention of the ratio in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society, but the same is inapplicable to the facts before us as there, information was by the audit party and on law and not facts. On point of fact, the information could be of some help but there was no such information in the case before us. 15. In the light of our discussion in the proceeding paragraphs, we are clear that everything had initially been disclosed by the assessee and the reopening proceedings are seen to have been undertaken on mere change of opinion. Such action was unjustified and the ld. CIT(A), in our view, correctly cancelled such action. We see no justification to interfere with his conclusion. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 85 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Income Tax Return, Total Income, Unexplained Money, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income And Wealth Ordinance, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, Wealth Tax Return
-
1989 (10) TMI 84 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... t. In this view of the matter, I fully concur with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Accountant Member that the explanation (story), made out in the said letter was an attempt to help the assessee from the predicament, in which she was placed. Again, I do not agree with the stand taken on behalf of the assessee that the provisions of s. 69B of the Act would be applicable only in a case where investment is made by the assessee in the articles mentioned therein, which should be owned by the assessee. In my considered opinion, provisions of that section would also be applicable in a case, in which investment is made by the assessee in the articles not owned by him. In this view of the matte, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Accountant Member that the amount of Rs. 1 lac was rightly taxed in the hands of the assessee, as income from undisclosed sources. 7. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for disposal, according to the majority opinion.
-
1989 (10) TMI 83 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... hat this is the only trust of its kind. The impugned income is the type of income contemplated in cl. (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 164 of the I.T. Act being income receivable under the trust bequeathed by a person by a Will. Therefore, the assessment of such income cannot be made at the maximum marginal rate. This argument of Ms. Vissanji has therefore to be accepted. Finally from the details filed before us, we find that the assessments of the two beneficiaries in respect of the income received by them for the year under appeal had already taken place in October 1983 and September 1984. The assessment of the trust has been made in March 1985. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Trustees of Chaturbhuj Raghavji Trust s case and of V.H. Sheth s case such assessment cannot be sustained. On this account also, the assessee is entitled to succeed. Therefore, for these reasons, we will confirm the order of the AAC and dismiss the departmental appeal.
-
1989 (10) TMI 82 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... fit as a result of the partial decontrol of steel prices and since the same could not be foreseen by the appellant at the time of filing of the revised estimates, it cannot be said that the estimates filed were in fact under estimates. The action of the ITO in levying interest under s. 216 cannot therefore, be upheld and the levy accordingly the conclusion cancelled. 13. We have gone through very minutely the conclusion arrived at by the CIT (A) and, in our opinion, it does not call for any interference. The learned Departmental Representative could not point out any infirmity in this conclusion at the time of hearing of the appeal before us. This finding of the CIT(A) remaining unassailable, we endorse the same and confirm his order on this point. The reasons given by him in deleting the interest under s. 216 of the Act, are proper and justified on the facts of this case. This ground of the Revenue also fails. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 81 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... av and had found that no only there was no water in the swimming pool but it was not in use at all. Keeping in mind this fact as well as some of the other factors mentioned in the order of the learned Accountant Member, with which I fully concur. I am of the view of the fair market value of the Flat in question does not exceed 15 of the apparent consideration as indicated in the Sale Deed. In this view of the matter, my answer, to question No. 1 referred to me is in the negative. 5. In view of my answer to question No. 1, the issue raised in question No. 2 does not survive. The learned Counsel for the assessee wanted to make the submissions in respect of the issue raised in question No. 2 above. However, I did not allow him to do so, as according to me, in view of the decision given by me to question No. 1 above, the issue raised in question No. 2 becomes infructuous/redundant. 6. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for disposal according to the majority opinion.
-
1989 (10) TMI 80 - ITAT BOMBAY
Business Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... party and are of the view that the decision of the Tribunal has turned on the peculiar facts obtaining in that case. it is no doubt true that certain observations made by the Tribunal apparently support the stand taken on behalf of the assessee. However, we are of the view that those observations have to be read in the context of the fact/situati on obtaining in that case and cannot be generalised. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee s own case as well as in the case of Hoechst Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. In this view of the matter, we hold that the C.I.T.(A) was not justified in accepting the assessee s contention for excluding the proportionate salary relating to the period during which the aforesaid two employees were outside India, for the purpose of working out disallowance u/s. 40A(5) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the C.I.T.(A) on this point and restore that of the I.T.O. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 79 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... , the payment of interest but the High Court stated that that was not material in view of s. 40(b). therefore, we do not have clear answer from the High Court on the question whether the genuineness of the firm is affected if one of the conditions of the partnership deed, i.e., contribution of capital, is not fulfilled. In our view, if capital is not contributed by any of the partners, that is a matter between the partners inter se. It may amount to breach of condition of the partnership deed after it is entered into but on that account it cannot be said that the partnership is not genuine. In other words a breach of contract does not mean that when the contract was entered into it was not intended to be acted upon. Therefore, the fact that capital is not contributed as agreed upon does not mean that when the partnership deed was entered into it was not intended to be acted upon. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to registration. 6. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 78 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... the order under appeal be upheld. 15. In reply Mr. Shah again urged that neither of the two authorities below stated about any device having been adopted by the assessee and if by mere language of the statute tax is saved by an assessee no new interpretation was required to be given to the relevant provisions of the statute. 16. While disposing of assessee s appeal for asst. yr. 1977-78 we have taken the view that the assessee is required to be assessed in the status of URF. As discussed above, that status of the assessee firm has also been accepted by the Tribunal upto asst. yr. 1976-77 in that view of the matter the assessee firm is found entitled to claim set off of the losses of earlier years, as mentioned above, against the profits of the year under consideration In support of this conclusion we find good support from the decisions cited by Mr. Shah. 17. In the result assessee s appals for both the years are hereby accepted and the relevant order of the CIT(A)set aside.
-
1989 (10) TMI 77 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Assessment Year, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... not violate any law or cannot commit any offence. 5. The decision in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. s case has no application. In that case the only controversy was whether interest on unpaid cess was a penalty or cess. The court held that interest on unpaid cess was part of the cess and not penalty, holding it to be allowable deduction. There was no dispute that the interest was business expenditure and the decision proceeded on that assumption. 6. Regarding the argument based on the former section 80V we may at once point out that its purpose was to encourage payment of taxes. If money is borrowed for payment of tax the state would realise the tax dues although it would suffer some loss by granting a deduction of the interest paid thereon. For the above reasons, the assessee s claim cannot be accepted and this ground is rejected. 7. The second ground is regarding a disallowance of Rs.300. It is not pressed and is accordingly rejected. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 76 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ntatives of both sides. In view of the aforesaid beneficial Circular issued by the CBDT which has been relied upon by the ITAT Madras Bench in the case of M. V. Subbiah vs. WTO we are of the considered opinion that the AAC was fully justified in allowing deduction in respect of total amount of liability amounting to Rs. 81,410 being loan taken for incurring expenditure on construction of residential house property. However, in case the value of the aforesaid residential house property is finally determined as per r. 1BB in accordance with the directions given by us in the cross objections submitted by the assessee, since the value of the house property would be much below Rs. 1 lakh which is exempt under s. 5(1)(iv), no amount of liability in such an event would be deductible for computing taxable wealth. 10. In the result, the departmental appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection submitted by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1989 (10) TMI 75 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ed also states that the said s. 6 does not operate to bring an automatic disruption of the HUF on the death of its member. Therefore, the trend of the judicial decisions is in favour of the view that automatic disruption of the assessee HUF did not take place on the death of Lakhaji Kunverji. Regarding the Gujarath High Court decision in the case of KANTILAL MANILAL it can at best be said that the share of Lakhaji Kunverji in the family property went out on his death and was divided among his heirs. However, that case does not decide that the family was disrupted as a result of the death of one of the heirs. Regarding the counsel s submission that notice under s. 148 of the IT Act had not been given although returns had not been filed, in our view, that does not take away the burden on the assessee to prove that partition has taken place as claimed. We, therefore, hold that there is no basis for the assessee s claim to partition 8. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 74 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ed also states that the said s. 6 does not operate to bring an automatic disruption of the HUF on the death of its member. Therefore, the trend of the judicial decisions is in favour of the view that automatic disruption of the assessee HUF did not take place on the death of Lakhaji Kunverji. Regarding the Gujarath High Court decision in the case of KANTILAL MANILAL it can at best be said that the share of Lakhaji Kunverji in the family property went out on his death and was divided among his heirs. However, that case does not decide that the family was disrupted as a result of the death of one of the heirs. Regarding the counsel s submission that notice under s. 148 of the IT Act had not been given although returns had not been filed, in our view, that does not take away the burden on the assessee to prove that partition has taken place as claimed. We, therefore, hold that there is no basis for the assessee s claim to partition 8. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 73 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... o purchase the property at an agreed price. In consideration thereof the vendor cannot sell the property to any one else but the purchaser. When the transaction goes through, earnest money forms part of the purchase price but before that it is a separate amount for the right to purchase the property for an agreed price. It would be paid by forfeiture in case the transaction did not materialise due to the fault of the assessee or be included in the purchase price if it did materialise. The cheque was returned because the right was assigned and the assignee agreed to pay the full amount of Rs. 2,75,00,000. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs would be paid straight to the vendor instead of being paid through the assessee. The assessee, therefore, paid Rs. 5 lakhs to the vendor by not receiving that amount from the assignee. The claim, therefore, that the assessee did not incur any cost in unfounded. For the above reasons we confirm the order of the CIT and dismiss this appeal.
-
1989 (10) TMI 72 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Assessment Year, Capital Gains, Earnest Money, High Court, Textile Machinery, Winding Up ... ... ... ... ..... rchase the property at an agreed price. In consideration thereof the vendor cannot sell the property to anyone else but the purchaser. When the transaction goes through earnest money forms part of the purchase price but before that it is a separate amount for the right to purchase the property for an agreed price. It would be paid by forfeiture in case the transaction did not materialise due to the fault of the assessee or be included in the purchase price if it did materialise. The cheque was returned because the right was assigned and the assignee agreed to pay the full amount of Rs. 2,75,00,000. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs would be paid straight to the vendor instead of being paid through the assessee. The assessee therefore, paid Rs. 5 lakhs to the vendor by not receiving that amount from the assignee. The claim therefore, that the assessee did not incur any cost is unfounded. For the above reasons we confirm the order of the Commissioner and dismiss this appeal.
-
1989 (10) TMI 71 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Assessment Year, HUF Property, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... ates that the said section 6 does not operate to bring about an automatic disruption of the HUF on the death of its member. Therefore, the trend of the judicial decisions is in favour of the view that automatic disruption of the assessee-HUF did not take place on the death of Lakhaji Kunverji. Regarding the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Kantilal Manilal it can, at best, be said that the share of Lakhaji Kunverji in the family property went out on his death and was divided among his heirs. However, that case does not decide that the family was disrupted as a result of the death of one of the heirs. Regarding the counsel s submission that notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act had not been given although returns had not been filed, in our view, that does not take away the burden on the assessee to prove that partition has taken place as claimed. We, therefore, hold that there is no basis for the assessee s claim to partition. 8. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
....
|
