|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 259 Records
-
1992 (8) TMI 125 - ITAT DELHI-B
Foreign Exchange, Interest Income, Interest On Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... o follow the rule of issuing of a notice, before framing of the assessment, the assessment so framed is not conforming to the ordinary rule and therefore, is an irregularity or a defect or a mistake, which is not fatal to the assessment framed. It only makes the assessment imperfect and to enable him to remove the imperfection, the proper course to be followed, is to set aside the assessment. The argument of the assessee, that, such remands would result in extending the time limit prescribed under section 153(1) of the Act, in our opinion is not justified. It is for irregular or imperfect assessments, that, the first appellate authority has been conferred with the power of remand and considering such situations of remand that, the Legislature has provided in section 153(2A) of the Act, the time limit of two years has been allowed for the making of the assessment, from the end of the financial year, in which the order of remand was made. The appeal of the assessee is rejected.
-
1992 (8) TMI 124 - ITAT DELHI-B
Account Books, Accounting Year, Assessable Value, Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Business Expenditure, Change In Method, Closing Stock, Excise Duty, Foreign Exchange, Foreign Technician, Higher Rate, Plant And Machinery, Previous Year, Supreme Court
-
1992 (8) TMI 123 - ITAT DELHI-A
Foreign Exchange, Interest Income, Interest On Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... y be observed here that it is not the case of the Department that the assessee had committed a breach of that condition and even otherwise the condition being under section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973, the breach thereof is culpable and is punishable under section 56 of the said Act. Thus, the condition placed by the Reserve Bank was not a hollow formality, but the assessee was obliged to obey it in the strict sense of the terms, failing which he was liable to be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. Such being the legal obligation for holding the property for charitable purpose, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act. 18. In view of the foregoing discussions, the wealth of Rs. 44 lakhs in the assessment year 1985-86 and of Rs. 61.67 lakhs in the assessment year 1986-87 is deleted from being taxed. 19. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of the Department are dismissed
-
1992 (8) TMI 122 - ITAT DELHI-A
Assessing Officer ... ... ... ... ..... -in-trade and in support decision of the Tribunal in 36 Taxation page 25 was pressed into service. This legal argument was amply answered by Sr. Departmental Representative, Mr. Gupta, who submitted that in the absence of full text of judgment, the judicial principle could not be properly appreciated, whereas according to him, there was a direct decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal v. CIT 1984 146 ITR 368 where it was held that investment in stock could be taxed under section 69. Mr. Gupta also placed before the Bench meaning of the word investment given in Webster dictionary. Mr. Agarwal could not contradict how the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case, referred to above, was not applicable. In our opinion, section 69 is rightly applied because it refers to the investment made by the assessee in an asset, whether stock-in-trade or investment is irrelevant. 12. to 20. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1992 (8) TMI 121 - ITAT DELHI-A
Accounting Year, Closing Stock ... ... ... ... ..... rhead etc. This ruling of the Madras High Court, supports the view adopted by us above that, direct labour of own employees cannot be excluded for arriving at the direct cost of goods. In this decision, the Court ruled that, the revenue could not question the direct cost method, because, it was found that, the change was bona fide and was followed thereafter consistently. We are accordingly of the view that, the revenue could not impose upon the assessee to follow the absorption costing method in preference to the direct costing method, except to the extent of the modification of the direct costing as observed by us earlier. Since the assessee s method considered most of the elements of direct cost, the revenue could not reject the method under section 145 of the Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the Supreme Court decision in British Paints India Ltd. s case would not be applicable to the appellant company. 37. This para is not reproduced here as it involve minor issue.
-
1992 (8) TMI 120 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ng in-patients and has started to construct a big hospital. Further, the objects of the trust are fully in conformity with the provisions of s. 10(22A) of the IT Act. The assessee also contended that the trust was established only for philanthropic purposes and to cater to the needs of persons suffering from illness or treatment of persons during convalescence or requiring rehabilitation. Hence, the decision referred to above will squarely apply to the facts of this case. In view of the above, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue s appeals. 6. Coming to the cross-objections of the assessee, we see that the grounds taken in them are against the findings of the ITO. We have already held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under s. 10(22A) of the IT Act. Hence, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed while the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 119 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessing Officer, Investment Allowance, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... iation and investment allowance is upheld by us, in respect of the new generator, we hold that there has been no concealment of income or particulars of income or erroneous claim for deduction put forward before the department and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on this count is cancelled. Even if a different view is taken on the claim for deduction of depreciation and investment allowance in respect of the comber and the new generator, penalty is not leviable for the reason that the appellant has furnished an explanation which it had substantiated through circumstantial and collateral evidence. There is no mens rea in the conduct of the assessee. If the explanation remains substantiated, no penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c) though such explanation was liable to be rejected by the assessing authority. Thus, in any view of the matter, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the appeals are allowed
-
1992 (8) TMI 118 - ITAT COCHIN
Charitable Trust, High Court, Income From Property, Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... be viewed likewise. The learned departmental representative vehemently argued that the expenditure on murder case was not for the purpose of the trust. But the learned representative of the assessee explained that the members of the trust planted poles in the river and the rival groups had tried to occupy the place, as a result of which there was a confrontation between the members and the rival group. In that, some one was murdered in the melee. Charges were framed against the members of the community and it was in this context the trust had taken the defence. This is to protect the community from losing personal liberty, and therefore it is for the purpose of the trust. Having regard to this, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11, if regard to had to the amounts spent on loans, advances, murder case expenses and temple expenses. For these reasons, we uphold the view of the CIT (Appeals). 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (8) TMI 117 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Foreign Exchange, Interest Income, Interest On Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... , confiscated because of infraction of law which was the genesis of the problem. 16. In the case of Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT 1961 41 ITR 350, the Supreme Court held that if a sum is paid by an assessee conducting his business, because in conducting if he has acted in a manner which has rendered him liable to penalty for an infraction of the law, it cannot be claimed as a deductible expense as it cannot be called a commercial loss incurred in carrying of his business. According to the Supreme Court infraction of the law is not a normal incident of business. 17. The present loss of Rs. 3,32,148 has resulted because of an infraction of the law which according to the Supreme Court is not a normal incident of business. In a situation like this the loss cannot be allowed as a deduction. We hold accordingly. In the ultimate analysis, the order of the CIT (A) is set aside on the point and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1992 (8) TMI 116 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... assessed vide assessment order dated 18-9-1981 at Rs. 94,020. The difference between the assessed income and the returned income is more than 20 . Thus income returned is less than 80 of the income assessed and hence Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is clearly applicable in this case. We hold accordingly. 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee laid great stress on there being a common practice with the bank to accommodate certain people. Frankly speaking, we are not aware of any such practice by which the banks give accommodation to certain parties. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee. 10. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the case law relied upon by the learned D. R., we are of the considered opinion that it was a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and that the first appellate authority has rightly confirmed the penalty. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (8) TMI 115 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Income From House Property, Income From Other Sources, Investment Company ... ... ... ... ..... a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale of such shares. By implication, it means that in case of an investment company if the business consists of purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall not be deemed to be carrying on speculation business. In other words, an investment company dealing in shares shall be considered to be trading in shares, and not doing speculation business. In that view of the matter, the losses suffered by the investment company on the purchase and sale of shares have to be adjusted against other income. We hold accordingly. In the final analysis, the losses of Rs. 4,90,223, Rs. 67,910 and Rs. 13,23,285 for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively shall be adjusted against other income of the assessee for these items. 9. In the result, appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 are allowed and that for the assessment year 1984-85 is partly allowed
-
1992 (8) TMI 114 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
... ...
... ... ..... learned CIT(A) but he did not consider the same in right perspective and confirmed the addition merely on the ground that there was no evidence as to the details of those liabilities. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the addition was unjustified and bad in law. 20. Dr. K. Chaudhuri, the learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 21. In view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugali Sugar Works (P) Ltd. we do not think that the addition is justified. Though the liabilities were unilaterally written back, but that does not mean that the liabilities ceased or extinguished, particularly when the assessee-company claimed that the parties are still claiming payments and others may claim the same. On this issue also, we do not find the order of the learned CIT(A) to be justified and, as such, we reverse his order. 22. In the result, the appeal by the assessee succeeds and is allowed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 113 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Appellate Orders, Assessing Officer, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... uasi-judicially. Therefore, where any direction is given by any higher or superior authority to the Assessing Officer as to the manner in which a rectification order is to be passed then it would amount to interference with judicial or quasi-judicial function of the Assessing Officer. In that view of the matter a rectification order passed upon instigation from or at the behest or direction of any higher authority like the Appellate Commissioner is not valid and cannot be sustained. We, therefore, hold that the Appellate Commissioner was not justified in saying that the Assessing Officer can rectify the earlier orders in order to withdraw interest already granted to the assessee company under section 244(1A) of the Act. We derive support to hold so from the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ITO v. Eastern Scales (P.) Ltd. 1978 115 ITR 323. 10. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 112 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Trading Liability ... ... ... ... ..... nsured that the claim for deduction of the liabilities of Rs. 20,90,829 receives full scrutiny by reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1986-87. The CIT(A) has not also relied so much on the fresh evidence in deleting the addition as on the facts that the liabilities, being considered bogus, can be disallowed on general principles themselves in the year to which they relate and further that they, having been paid during the relevant year of account, cannot fall for being considered under section 41(1). On a consideration of all the facts of the case and the findings of the CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) did not commit any error in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,90,829 made under section 41(1) of the Act, nor did he commit any such violation of the provisions of rule 46A(2) or (3) of the Income-tax Rules as would cause prejudice to the interests of the department. We see no merit in the appeal. We uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal
-
1992 (8) TMI 111 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Assessment Proceedings, New Industrial Undertaking, Original Assessment, Profits And Gains, Reason To Believe
-
1992 (8) TMI 110 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... sioner under section 264 of the Act. The present case, we are satisfied, fully satisfies the tests laid down for the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act which, in our opinion, has been rightly invoked by the Commissioner of Income-tax. 19. Before conclulding we may state that we found certain observations in the order of the commissioner of Income-tax casting aspersions on the assessee s representative who appeared before the Income-tax Officer and also the Commissioner. We wish to make it clear that we have not been swayed by those observations in reaching our conclusion, nor should it be taken that we subscribe to them. The only impression we gained from a reading of those observations was that they are best ignored. However, as judicial officers we cannot help feeling that those observations appear to us to have been made against persons who have had no opportunity to defend themselves. 20. The order under section 263 is upheld and the appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (8) TMI 109 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... assessee is called upon to explain here is the disparity between the income assessed finally and the income estimated by it for purposes of advance tax. The facts of the case show that the assessee had made an honest estimate of its advance tax liability, but that at the time of the assessment the Departmental authorities did not accept a portion of its claim for depreciation which was finally accepted by the Tribunal on appeal by the assessee. It, therefore, follows that there could be no penalty on the facts of the present case as I find, there was a reasonable basis for the assessee s estimate of advance tax as the income returned by it has been finally accepted. The decision of the Calcutta High Court relied on by the Revenue, far from supporting the Revenue s case, supports the assessee s case. I, therefore, respectfully follow this decision of the Calcutta High Court and confirm the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 108 - ITAT CALCUTTA
Advance Tax, Claim For Depreciation, False Estimate, Penalty Notice, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... see is called upon to explain here is the disparity between the income assessed finally and the income estimated by it for purposes of advance tax. The facts of the case show that the assessee had made an honest estimate of its advance tax liability, but that at the time of the assessment the departmental authorities did not accept a portion of its claim for depreciation which was finally accepted by the Tribunal on appeal by the assessee. It, therefore, follows that there could be no penalty on the facts of the present case as I find, there was a reasonable basis for the assessee s estimate of advance tax as the income returned by it has been finally accepted. The decision of the Calcutta High Court relied on by the Revenue, far from supporting the Revenue s case, supports the assessee s case. I, therefore, respectfully follow this decision of the Calcutta High Court and confirm the order of the CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (8) TMI 107 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Penalty, For Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... gating to Rs.3,54,724. The reported decisions relied upon by the assessee would not be of much help to him. In the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd., the Honble Supreme Court was dealing with a case under the corresponding provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which are materially different from the one, with which we are concerned in the present appeals. The word deliberate has been deleted since long in the relevant provision of the Act, which are applicable to the instant case. Similarly, the decision in the case of Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini, would not be of any help to the assessee, in view of sweeping changes made in section 271(1)(c) of the Act from time to time. In this view of the matter, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judicial Member that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was exigible in the instant case. 13. The matter will now go back before the regular Bench for decision, according to the majority opinion.
-
1992 (8) TMI 106 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Bona Fide, Late Filing ... ... ... ... ..... assessing officer has levied. No interference is called for insofar as the penalty pertaining to assessment year 1975-76 onwards is concerned. 16. For all these years, the penalties have been levied before the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal had directed to adjust the undisclosed income of Rs. 94,666 by taking Rs. 25,000 as from the sources of the assessee s wife as against the credit of Rs. 20,000 given by the assessing officer and by excluding interest pertaining to the said sum of Rs. 25,000, the effect of which has not been given so far. We, therefore, direct the assessing officer that penalties for all these years be further reduced pursuant to the ultimate reduction in the assessed tax of the assessee upon giving eftect to the order of the Tribunal. 17. In the result, subject to our observations in the preceding paragraph, the appeals for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75 are partly allowed and those for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80 are dismissed
............
|
