|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 264 Records
-
1994 (10) TMI 104 - ITAT DELHI-B
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... leased out by the assessee. This view is supported by decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Eastern Spg. Mills and Industries Ltd. 1994 74 Taxman 318. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Cold Storage relied upon by the Assessing Officer has no application to the facts of the case. However, this question is linked with question of ownership of computers considered by us in earlier paragraphs. The claim of investment allowance has to be considered in the light of finding recorded on genuineness of transaction relating to purchase and lease. As above question is to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer, the question of investment allowance as a consequent relief has also to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. In the above background, orders on this issue are also set aside and matter restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. 19. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms stated above.
-
1994 (10) TMI 103 - ITAT DELHI-A
Delay In Filing Appeal, Failure To File ... ... ... ... ..... merits in preference to the approach, which scuttles a decision on merits. It is true that after considering the facts of the case, the apex court in that case condoned the delay. But the above decision cannot be read as an authority that delay in every case is to be condoned irrespective of fact whether it has been explained or not. The apex court has not laid down that period of limitation prescribed under the statute is to be ignored because it would lead to denial of substantial justice. Each case has to be considered on merit. In the case of CWT v. Meghji Girdharilal 1989 177 ITR 294 Hon ble M.P. High Court refused to condone the delay in the filing of application after considering case of Mst. Katiji. There were several other cases to the same effect. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that delay in the filing of appeals has not been properly explained. These appeals are not entertained and are dismissed as out of time. 7. In the result, assessee s appeals are dismissed
-
1994 (10) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI
Business Expenditure, House Property, Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... ulars of income or furnished in accurate particulars of income. It has been observed by us that the CIT (Appeals) in paragraph 6 of his order has recorded a finding that the Directors have not shown any interest received in their returns of income. This fact is incorrect. The learned Counsel has made a statement before us that interest paid to the Directors has been declared by them in their individual returns and shown as such. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mussadital Ram Bharose 1987 165 ITR 14, we are of the view that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted in this case. We, accordingly, cancel the penalty imposed for assessment year 1985-86 as well as assessment year 1986-87. 14. In the result, the quantum appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 4237 (Delhi) of 1989 and 6772 (Delhi) of 1989 are dismissed whereas the penalty appeals in ITA Nos. 5658 and 5659 (Delhi) 1992 are allowed
-
1994 (10) TMI 101 - ITAT DELHI
Assessed Income, Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Proceedings, Inaccurate Particulars, Income From Other Sources, Penalty For Concealment, Revised Return
-
1994 (10) TMI 100 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... to the lives of the poor people is a public evil and support given to the State action in curbing it or in crushing it, besides promoting public good, would certainly be in the interests of the assessee s business. The expenditure is allowable under s. 37 of the IT Act and in the absence of verifiable vouchers or details, we disallow 40 of such expenditure. 9. Turning to the estimate of income on security deposits, we uphold the contention of the Revenue that in mercantile system of accounting, interest on security deposits lying with the Excise Department should be included on accrual basis. As per the order of the Assessing Officer, it is not known on what amount the estimate was made and at what percentage. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to estimate the income on security deposits at the percentage at which such security deposits earned interest from the Excise Department and modify the assessment, if necessary. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 99 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... d in the original advance of Rs. 15,20,000 was disbursed in cash, by pointing to the amount received from three persons, namely Issac Thressiamma, Ancy Issac and Aniamma Jose, who in turn have taken a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs each from Nadungadi Bank Ltd. on 25th April, 1981 with the loan transaction evidenced by the copy of the bank account. It is on a consideration of these facts and the materials produced before him that the CIT(A) has come to a very reasonable conclusion that there was no case for making an addition of Rs. 15,20,000 in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contentions of the learned senior Departmental Representative which were on the lines of the Assessing Officer. 8. The cross objection is only in support of the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,20,000 and, therefore, the same is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Departmental appeal is dismissed. Cross objection is allowed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 98 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... the factual position, there seems to be no plausible reason for not waiving the interest charged under ss. 139(8) and 217. Further, as per the note dt. 8th Sept., 1994 submitted by the Departmental Representative before me, the ITO has submitted his report dt. 8th Oct., 1990 in the matter of petitions for waiver and recommended to the Dy. CIT (Trivandrum) to consider the assessee s request favourably. But so far it appears that the Dy. CIT(Trivandrum) has not passed his orders in this regard. The considerations which weighed with the ITO for dropping the penalty proceedings under ss. 271(1)(a) and 273 will equally apply in the matter of waiver of interest charged under ss. 139(8) and 217. On these facts and circumstances of the case, the Dy. CIT(A) is fully justified in deleting the impugned interest charged under ss. 139(8) and 217. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Dy. CIT(A) though for a different reason as stated above. 12. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 97 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessing Officer, Bona Fide, Cash System, Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Penalty For Concealment, Previous Year
-
1994 (10) TMI 96 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessment Proceedings, Bona Fide, Hedging Transaction, Penalty For Concealment, Revised Return
-
1994 (10) TMI 95 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... lly considered the rival submissions as also the facts on record. Because of the differences and disputes between the parties, the firm s letter could not be produced by the assessee from that party. The Assessing Officer could have easily found out from the other party whether the facts narrated by the assessee were correct or not. This was, however, not done. The books of the assessee cannot be disbelieved for want of a confirmation or in the absence of any documentary evidence. The assessee has given all the facts and has shown the sale of 191.5 kg of waste. Since the matter has been settled by the assessee in the year under consideration, the relief was admissible in the year under consideration only. Now that the claim has been restricted to Rs. 6,194, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow this claim of the assessee which had been written off in the year under consideration. This ground is, therefore, partly allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 94 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Additional Tax, Assessing Officer, Commercial Profit, Undistributed Profits ... ... ... ... ..... the company justifying distribution of any or higher dividend. 13. We have considered the case law applied by the ld. counsel and we find that the plea regarding the amount of profit being at Rs. 3,07,952 is acceptable in view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Panama (P.) Ltd. s case because that was the amount which was commercial profit and which was carried to the profit and loss appropriation account. We have already seen that the case of loss is not at all established nor the case of any other requirement of funds like repayment of loans. We have also seen that the investments made by the assessee in land and the advances made in future to M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. do not justify the retention of profit by the assessee. 14. We, therefore, reject the assessee s plea that no tax was leviable under section 104. We hold that the assessee was required in law to distribute its profit by way of dividend, which was not done. 15. In the result, the appeal stands rejected
-
1994 (10) TMI 93 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Income Tax Rules ... ... ... ... ..... y reason of any mistake, defect or omission. On the basis of the said provision it is contended that the technical mistake committed by the assessee should not be treated to render the memorandum of appeal as incompetent. Since the photocopy of the demand notice had been duly filed with Form No. 35, it must be treated to be a sufficient compliance of law. 11. Looking to the entire facts of the case, we are of the view that by filing the photocopy of the demand notice, the assessee made sufficient compliance and by filing the demand notice in original after the show-cause notice served by the first appellate authority further compliance of law was also made. This is how the defect, if any, was cured and since it was only a technical violation of procedural law, it would not render the appeal liable to be rejected. Therefore, both the appeals deserve to be accepted. 12. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the CIT (Appeals) is directed to decide the appeals on merits
-
1994 (10) TMI 92 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Levy Of Penalty, Penalty Proceedings, Set On ... ... ... ... ..... . Looking to the entire facts of the case, we are of the view that the penalty cannot be sustained in either of the two cases. In the case of M/s Aggarwal Agricultural Industries, penalty was not leviable because proceedings were barred by limitation as laid down in section 275(1)(c) of the Act. As already seen, audit report had duly been obtained by the assessees in both the cases before the specified date as required in section 44AB. There was substantial compliance of law and the assessee could not be punished for the late furnishing of the audit reports inasmuch as there is no provision for levy of penalty for late filing/furnishing of report but only for failure to furnish report along with the return. If at all any action was warranted, it was against late filing of return for which section 271B was not applicable/attracted. Therefore, we hold that the penalty levied is not warranted in both the cases. The same is deleted. 14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed
-
1994 (10) TMI 91 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Capital Gains Tax, Original Assessment, Rectification Of Mistakes, Retrospective Effect, Tribunal's Order
-
1994 (10) TMI 90 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Assessing Officer, Business Expenditure, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... the present case, the assessee s 25 share in the loss made by the A. O. P. was rightly set off by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment against the assessee s other income. The enhancement made by the D.C. (Appeals) was not justified for both the years. 15. That leaves us with the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 out of the expenditure claimed against the picture realisation. Since complete details have been given with regard to the expenditure and no specific inflation or unvouched expenditure has been pointed out by the Income-tax Officer who has made the disallowance only on estimate, we delete the disallowance and direct the Income-tax Officer to accept the loss as claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86. 16. Our decision for the assessment year 1985-86 will mean that the enhancement made for the assessment year 1986-87 is also not sustainable and the set off granted by the ITO of an amount of Rs. 65,690 was proper. 17. In the result, the appeals are allowed
-
1994 (10) TMI 89 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Advertisement Expenditure, Assessment Year, Expenditure On Advertisement, Non Obstante Clause
-
1994 (10) TMI 88 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Assessment Year, Scientific Research, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ition under section 35(1)(ii). 19. Having concluded in the above discussion that in order to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2A), the institution to which the contribution is made, need not be recognised under section 35(1)(ii), the assessee s case, in this appeal, is still stronger because at the time when the programme was approved, the donee institution did have recognition under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Since recognition under section 35(1)(ii) which is generally for three years, is not co-terminus with the duration of the programme approved under section 35(2A), it is not necessary that the institution should have had recognition under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. when the donation was made and the duration of the approved programme was still not over. Under the circumstances, we see no infirmity in the order of the first appellate authority on the point. It is accordingly confirmed. 20. In the result, the revenue s appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 87 - ITAT BOMBAY
Assessing Officer, Business Income, Business Receipt, Capital Gains, Capital Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... sq. metre in the nature of a capital receipt and Rs. 400 per sq. metre in the nature of business receipt. The entire amount of consideration was a composite business receipt. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order on this count. 30. In regard to the allowability of expenditure of Rs. 47,28,554, we find that the Assessing Officer has not considered these expenditures in the right perspective. All he got to see is that whether such expenditures were incurred in the interest of business and can be allowed as a business expenditure in accordance with law. This issue, in our opinion, needs to be examined afresh. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order on this count and restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to examine the allowability of this expenditure in accordance with law. 31. The other grounds were not pressed at the time of hearing. We dismiss the same as not pressed. 32. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed
-
1994 (10) TMI 86 - ITAT BOMBAY
Business Loss, Carry Forward And Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... Chapter, shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and shall be set off against the profits and gains, if any, of any business or profession for that assessment year. Therefore, section 72(1) has a direct impact upon the computation under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . In this case since the loss was not sustained under the head Profits and gains of business or profession , the loss cannot be carried forward. So simply because the overall result of all the activities carried on by the assessee resulted in a loss, such a loss cannot automatically be carried forward under section 72(1) specially when such loss was not incurred under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . Therefore to my mind it appears that the denial of set off relief prayed for by the assessee by both the lower authorities is sound in law and does not require any interference from me. I fail to see any valid point in this appeal and hence it is dismissed
-
1994 (10) TMI 85 - ITAT BOMBAY
Assessing Officer, Penalty For Concealment, Penalty Proceedings, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... A) was therefore justified in confirming the penalty. 16. Since we have held on merits that there is concealment of particulars of income, we refrain ourselves from expressing our view in respect of other legal contentions raised by the assessee. However, we may also mention that the learned counsel for the assessee had argued that the CIT(A) was not justified in observing that no explanation had been filed by the assessee. He pointed out about the letter written by the assessee before the Assessing Officer which appears at page 28 of the paper book. This letter is dated 1-12-1988. It has been examined by us and we find that no explanation has been tendered in that letter of the assessee and the assessee has merely requested for keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the decision of the CIT(A). Therefore, the contention of the assessee that explanation had been flied is without force. 17. In view of the above discussions, the appeals for both the years are dismissed
............
|
