|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 259 Records
-
1992 (8) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... unnecessary. These were intended to embrace the goods but not identical with those goods. If the items were similar appliances which are normally used in the household, these will be taxable under Tariff Item No. 33C. In para 7 of the order, the Supreme Court held that ldquo we agree that it is not necessary to be a domestic electrical appliance that it must be actually used in the home or the house. It must be of a kind which is generally used for household purposes rdquo (emphasis applied). 7. In the above appeal the items cannot be said to be generally used for household purposes for the reasons contained in paragraph 5 above. 8. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the imported goods are classifiable under Heading 8418.69 and eligible to the benefit of concessional assessment in terms of Notification 59/87 against Sl. No. 13 thereof. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants.
-
1992 (8) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import ... ... ... ... ..... ion of the machinery in question and their plant was for manufacture of computer software which falls under the heading ldquo Electronic Components and Equipments rdquo as recognised by the Directorate of Industry, Government of West Bengal and the Ministry of Industry, Government of India. The Directorate of Industries, West Bengal has certified that the system imported was for the substantial expansion of a specific unit. The activities to be carried on by the imported equipment are complex process somewhat akin to the activity of developing of colour films, printing, enlarging and processing of photo films as in the case of Das Colour Lab. and Saraswathi Stores. 10. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we hold that the goods in question are entitled to the benefit of concessional assessment as Project Import under Heading 84.66(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1965 ii . We set aside to the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (8) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT
Rejection for assessee’s claim for concession - Held that:- The assessee is not entitled to the concession claimed in both these appeals. Its entitlement will depend on whether the purchaser is the holder of an L-6 licence (or C.T. 2 certificate) or not. The Tribunal has pointed out that the goods were supplied by the assessee to Indian Rayon Corporation and M/s. Nirlon Synthetics Fibre and Chemicals Ltd., of which the latter was the holder of an L-6 licence. The position in regard to the former is not known. The grant of concession in respect of the former by the Collector (Appeals) in the first appeal is, therefore, correct and is upheld. So far as the other appeal is concerned, the assessee produced no material to show that the “beneficiary” factory was eligible for the concession under Rule 192. The benefit of such concession to the assessee must therefore be held to have been rightly denied in that appeal.
-
1992 (8) TMI 155 - ITAT PUNE
Foreign Company, Manufacture And Sale, Revenue Expenditure, Sales Tax, Same Business ... ... ... ... ..... t, 1989 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1984 is subject to the first proviso. The Calcutta High Court in Sri Jagannath Steel Corpn s case gave a harmonious construction of the entire provisions and adopting textual and contextual interpretations came to the conclusion that the payment for last quarter of tax paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) would be sufficient compliance with the provisions of law. It also pointed out that any other interpretation was not possible, because in the next year deduction would be denied to the assessee because liability did not arise in that year by virtue of Explanation 2 inserted by the Finance Act, 1989 with effect from 1-4-1984. Following respectfully the aforesaid judgments, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and allow it in accordance with the directions given above. 19. to 26. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1992 (8) TMI 154 - ITAT PUNE
Actually Allowed, Chargeable Profits, General Reserve, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... e same as discussed in appeal for the assessment year 1983-84. The reasons of the CIT (Appeals) for confirming the reduction of capital are the same as in appeal for the assessment year 1983-84. Since common arguments were advanced by the parties on this issue, following our decision on this point in appeal for the assessment year 1983-84, we uphold the orders of the CIT (Appeals) and reject the ground taken by the assessee. 16. The second ground is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in not disposing of the grounds relating to levy of interest under section 7(C)(1). As the very ground taken by the assessee shows that the CIT (Appeals) has not dealt with the same, the question does not arise out of the order of the CST (Appeals) and therefore, we shall not deal with the same. No specific argument was also advanced before us in this regard. It is open to the assessee to take up the matter with the concerned CIT (Appeals) for remedial action. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (8) TMI 153 - ITAT PUNE
Assessing Officer, Deemed Gift, Market Value, Quoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... opriate for valuation of shares of such a company because among the factors which govern the consideration of the buyer and the seller where the one desires to purchase and the other wishes to sell, the factor of break-up value as on liquidation hardly enters into consideration where the shares are of a going concern. It is only where a company is ripe for winding up or the situation is such that the fluctuations of profits and uncertainty of conditions at the date of valuation prevent any reasonable estimation of the profit earning capacity of the company, that the valuation by the break-up method would be justified. 8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the cases of the assessees, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in adopting break-up method and, therefore, the CGT(A) was justified in adopting yield method. Consequently, we uphold the orders of the CGT(A) and reject the common grounds taken by the revenue. 9. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed
-
1992 (8) TMI 152 - ITAT PUNE
Business Premises, Central Excise ... ... ... ... ..... to be true, such items alone could have been separated and seized. But it was not done so. What was seized is part and parcel of the gold jewellery of the assessee. This make-believe story is completed by saying that ultimately such sample jewellery were returned to Mr. Thadeshwar. This was obviously resorted only to show that the gold jewellery found excess did not belong to the assessee to avoid application of section 69A of the Act. 14. The only conclusion from the above narrated facts which can be arrived at reasonably is that the gold ornaments in question never belonged to Mr. Thadeshwar and they belonged to the assessee itself. The ITO was perfectly right to make the addition of value of the said ornaments as undisclosed investment without taking entry into the books of accounts. The said addition should not have been disturbed at all. 15. In the result, the revenue succeeds and the appeal is allowed. The order of the CIT(A) is cancelled and that of the ITO is restored
-
1992 (8) TMI 144 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Bad Debt, Bona Fide, Civil Suit, Export Business, Write Off
... ... ... ... ..... atisfied that the assessee falls within the scope of sub-section (3)(a) because the turnover and profit is easily ascertainable and consequently it is not the case where recourse had to be made under sub-section (3)(b) for the purpose of granting relief. 14. The revenue pointed out that the computation of the profit by the assessee has not taken into account any proportion of the over-head expenditure incurred in the head office and therefore the relief may have to be recomputed. This is a point which has not been taken at the earlier stages and, therefore, there is nothing on record to find out whether when there was a separate staff for the export business and except for the existence of a Head office, its contribution to the export activity is unknown. We, therefore, leave it to the Assessing Officer to verify the computation before granting the allowance under sub-section (3)(a) of section 80HHC. 15. to 18. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1992 (8) TMI 141 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Annual Value, Assessing Officer, House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ief on that count. The assessee had to pay property tax because the old building was not demolished. The tax was calculated on the basis of the old annual value of the building perhaps because during the relevant year of account quinquennial revision of annual value was not due or even because the process of re-construction was not over. As we have already demonstrated, these considerations are irrelevant for purposes of deciding the question whether during the period of extensive reconstruction of the old building, the assessee could be said to have derived any benefit in the form of income ----- actual or notional ----- and our view is that given the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee did not and could not have derived any income therefrom during the period of reconstruction of the property. 33. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we reject all the circumstances relied on by the assessee s counsel. 34. In the result, both the assessee s appeals are dismissed
-
1992 (8) TMI 140 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, Double Taxation Relief, Lottery Winning, Rental Income ... ... ... ... ..... remises and that he received a sum of Rs. 67,008 as and by way of compensation. The case before us is clearly one of receipt of certain amount on capital account as compensation for surrendering tenancy right. True, the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Malaysia does not contain a specific provision relating to such receipts. Even so, tenancy right being a right in property, compensation for surrendering the right, though received on capital account, is to be treated as income from property -- see Sevantilal Maneklal Sheth v. CIT 1968 68 ITR 503 (SC). This being the legal position, this receipt will be governed by Art. VI. 1 of the Agreement. And for the reasons given by us while dealing with the rental income received by the assessee from the Kuala Lumpur property, we hold that the sum of Rs. 67,008 cannot be brought to charge under the Indian Income-tax Act. 10. In the result, the departmental appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1992 (8) TMI 137 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... e had failed to furnish the report along with the return of income. However, w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 penalty has been provided for the default in not attaching the report along with the return also. This amendment being applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 is not applicable in this case. Taking the laws it existed as on the 1st day of the respective assessment years into account, penalty under s. 271B could not be imposed unless assessee had failed to obtain the report without a reasonable cause. In this case, the reason for the delay in obtaining a report is the delay beyond the control of the assessee, i.e., the appointment of the auditors by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Considering the totality and the circumstance of this case, we are of the view that penalty under s. 271B is not warranted in this case. The CIT(A) was thus justified in deleting the penalty for asst. yr. 1985-86 as well as for asst. yr. 1986-87. The appeals of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 135 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... t cannot be referred to the Hon ble High Court in view of the ratio of decision in the case of CIT vs. Anand Gum Industries (1986) 54 CTR (Raj) 17 (1985) 154 ITR 680 (Raj) and secondly, it deals with only a question of fact and cannot be referred to the Hon ble High Court. This question, therefore, is also rejected. 8. The answer to question No. 5 is obvious. It deals with the deletion of an amount of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 1,02,988 on account of estimated interest income on money advanced and unrecorded sale transaction of potatoes on the ground that the addition for such unrecorded transactions had been deleted. It is obvious that when the additions regarding alleged investment or alleged unrecorded sales themselves have been deleted, there would be no question of sustaining any addition by way of interest on that investment or profits from unrecorded sales. Hence, this question is also rejected. 9. Accordingly both the reference applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 133 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... 1) or cl. (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub-cl. (iv) or sub-cl. (v) of cl. (23C) of s. 10. Explanation. mdash For the purposes of this sub-clause trust includes any other legal obligation. Since this condition does not seem to have been satisfied in this case, the contributions can be brought to tax by applying this provision. That apart the other provisions of s. 12A, namely furnishing of audit report, application of money for the objects of the trust do not seem to have been complied with in this case. Therefore, the voluntary contributions cannot earn exemption unless these requirements of law, which appeared to be mandatory, are satisfied. We, therefore, hold that while the trust is genuine, the donations are genuine, the other conditions laid down in the IT Act to grant exemption to these donations from the levy of tax are not complied with, the donations cannot be exempted from the levy of tax. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1992 (8) TMI 132 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... old that even this case of Kerala High Court does not salvage the case of the assessee. 14. On going through the other cases pressed into service by Mr. Ganesan, we find that the controversy and facts were altogether different and, therefore, they need not be discussed. Probably these cases were activated just to highlight the judicial approach required to be adopted and this we have appropriately discussed in earlier paragraphs. We, therefore, uphold the appellate order on this point. 15. In asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 grounds are also raised against additions made on account of gifts received. In asst. yr. 1985-86 the amount of gifts added is Rs. 63,500 and in asst. yr. 1986-87 the amount so added is Rs. 5,000. It was submitted by Mr. Ganesan that the decision taken in connection with the ground concerning addition on account of deposits in NCBE be applied to this ground also and, therefore, we uphold the appellate order. 16. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 131 - ITAT DELHI-E
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... case of Kerala High Court does not salvage the case of the assessee. 14. On going through the other cases pressed into service by Mr. Ganesan, we find that the controversy and facts were altogether different and, therefore, they need not be discussed. Probably these cases were activated just to highlight the judicial approach required to be adopted and this we have appropriately discussed in earlier paragraphs. We, therefore, uphold the appellate order on this point. 15. In assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 grounds are also raised against additions made on account of gifts received. In assessment year 1985-86 the amount of gifts added is Rs. 63,500 and in assessment year 1986-87 the amount so added is Rs. 5,000. It was submitted by Mr. Ganesan that the decision taken in connection with the ground concerning addition on account of deposits in NCBE be applied to this ground also and, therefore, we uphold the appellate order. 16. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 130 - ITAT DELHI-E
Registered Firm, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... be inferred as is canvassed by Mr. Aggarwal. Therefore, in our opinion the Assessing Officer could not take into consideration the returns of subsequent two assessment years. 4.2 Moreover now that decision of the Supreme Court is available in the case of Garden Silk Weaving Factory where it was held that the loss of the registered partnership firm is required to be carried forward in the assessment of the firm to the extent the amount of loss is not set off in the assessment of individual partners, the controversy becomes academic. The learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the contention raised by Mr. Aggarwal to this effect and on going through the decision we find that the contention raised is correct. Besides considering the language of the section it is quite clear to our mind that provisions of section 183(b) of the Act would have no application in the case where loss is determined in the assessment of the firm. 5. In the result the appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (8) TMI 129 - ITAT DELHI-D
Accounting Year, Assessable Value, Assessing Officer, Business Expenditure, Deduction In Respect, Excise Duty, High Court, Investment Allowance Reserve
-
1992 (8) TMI 128 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... nd the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court was noted. However, since the Act was subsisting it was concluded that the liability being a statutory one has to be allowed as deduction so long as the system of accounting being mercantile. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 14. The last of the issues is in regard to the allowing of depreciation on roads and culverts. On this issue, after considering the rival submissions, and since the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 104 CTR (SC) 243 had held that roads within the factory premises are necessary adjuncts to carry on business activity so also the drains, etc., and, therefore, are part of building, allowing depreciation to road and culverts have been rightly held to be buildings. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue as well. 15. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed in part while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 127 - ITAT DELHI-C
A Firm, Accounting Year, Bad Debt, Deduction In Respect, Managing Director Or Director ... ... ... ... ..... uld be adjusted against a part of the interest which had been debited to her account prior to that date. A further amount of Rs. 16,700 was advanced partly on30-10-1968and again in April 1969. Thereafter, the amount of interest from year to year was debited to her account making up a total of Rs. 51,309 on 30-11-1979 when a sum of Rs. 15,800 was remitted by her in full and final settlement. This settlement stands dully approved by the Board of Directors in their meeting held on26-6-1980. In this view of the matter, it would have been a futile exercise on the part of the assessee in case it was to take legal action against the debtor, specially when the said debtor had at every stage, questioned the demand for payment of interest. In the final analysis, we uphold the action of the CIT(Appeals) in allowing necessary relief to the assessee on account of the bad debt written off. The second ground in the revenue s appeal is, accordingly, rejected. 13. The appeal is partly allowed
-
1992 (8) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... the method adopted by the assessee for valuation of closing stock is one of the recommended methods by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,New Delhi. The assessment year before us is the first accounting year of the business of assessee i.e., asst. yr. 1976-77. If the system of accounting is regularly followed in the subsequent assessment years there would not, in our view, be any loss to the Revenue. Once a uniform system of accounting is adopted the determination of correct profit by such method would be fair and reasonable. Since the appeals for subsequent years are also pending at one stage or the other, we approve the method of accounting adopted by the assessee so that the method is consistently followed in the subsequent assessment years. We, therefore, confirm the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the change in the method of accounting sought by the assessee. 39. In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-objection by the assessee is dismissed.
............
|
