|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 161 Records
-
1995 (6) TMI 90 - ITAT PATNA
Assessment Year, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... case of U.B.S. Publishers and Distributors. It was open to the management either not to make any payment, to make a higher payment, not to pay arrears or to pay arrears. In such a fluctuating situation it must be held that the liability became ascertained only on 13-4-1989 when the circular was issued. Thus following respectfully the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills (P.) Ltd s case and Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills case Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd s case as well as the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Burlop Commercial (P.) Ltd s case, we hold that the liability was not ascertained in A.Y. 1988-89 and, therefore, the book profits should be increased by the sum of Rs. 21,27,993 by virtue of Explanation (c) below section 115J of the Act. Accordingly, the decision of the CIT(A) is confirmed and this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected. 40. to 45. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues
-
1995 (6) TMI 86 - ITAT NAGPUR
Debt Owed, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... rds expenses expended by the computer operator. We find sufficient support from the decision of his lordship of the Supreme Court to come to the conclusion that the assessee has purchased the good. The word purchase as held by his lordships in the decision of the Supreme Court, means buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration . It can reasonably be presumed that even an adjustment towards a debt of a property would amount to a purchase in the given circumstances. In the instant cage of the assessee, the cost of the computer has been adjusted by the assessee towards a debt, ie., a debt owed by M/s. Total Computers, Bombay. 8. In the light of the above discussion and also in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Aravinda Reddy, we are in agreement with the arguments of the learned Authorised Representative. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 84 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Applied To, Association Of Persons, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... the small AOP and qua a member of the main AOP, section 86(v) has exhausted itself. Now, it is a matter of record that income-tax was not paid by the small AOP. True, the small AOP did not pay tax on its share of the income of the main AOP by virtue of section 86(v). But this factor does not alter the fact-situation that the small AOP did not pay tax on its share of the income of the main AOP. And if the small AOP had not paid tax on its income, the question of its members (viz., the assessees before us) getting the benefit of rebate under section 86(v) does not arise. In such a situation, there is no question of harking back to the main AOP and its income. 11. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that evidently the grant of rebate to the assessee in the original assessment was a mistake --- a mistake occasioned by misconception as to facts and law. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the matter. 12. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 83 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Business Or Profession ... ... ... ... ..... consideration which is noteworthy. As already pointed out, the scheme of investment deposit account replaces the scheme of investment allowance and under the latter scheme there was no provision for granting investment allowance both in the hands of firm and partners. This apart, as we have already pointed out, the scheme of section 32AB does not contain any provision which enables both the firm and partners to get the benefit of deduction under that section. For a fact, the proviso referred to above makes it very clear that the legislative intention was to grant deduction only to the firm carrying on the eligible business or profession and not to its partners. 20. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that the first appellate authority was not justified in allowing the assessee s claim. We, therefore, set aside the order of that authority on the issue under consideration and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 21. In the result, the departmental appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 80 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Scientific Research Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee cannot be faulted for having made his claim under section 34(1)(ii) of the Act. Secondly, the benefit available to the assessee under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act is more than the benefit admissible to the assessee under section 80-GGA of the Act. This by virtue of section 80A(2) of the Act read with section 80B(5) of the Act. In such a situation, as we see it, there is nothing wrong in the assessee s claiming the higher benefit under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, particularly when there is no legal bar to the assessee s making such a claim. 25. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs paid by the assessee to an approved institution within the meaning of that section, namely M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation. 26. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
-
1995 (6) TMI 78 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... e, the said point still makes the subject of a debatable issue. In the case of Volkart Bros. the Supreme Court held that debatable issues which may conceivably admit of two views cannot make the subject-matter of rectification within the limited scope of s. 254(2) of the Act. In view of the conflict of opinion on the point of retrospective or prospective operation of a Supreme Court decision, the controversy cannot be settled either way in this application. Therefore, following Supreme Court decision in Volkart Bros. we decline to rectify the mistake which, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of N.C. Budhraja and Co. may certainly be said to be there in the order of the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, we would dismiss the present applications. We are, however, of the opinion that the said Supreme Court decision is in essence and, in effect, directly on the point involved in the appeal decided by the Tribunal. 6. In the result, the applications are dismissed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 77 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... y state that the tax so deducted and the advance tax shall be treated as a payment of tax for the assessment year next following the financial year in which it was paid. At the time of the regular assessment, credit of the tax so paid shall be given. In other words, it shall be adjusted against the tax liability determined at the time of the regular assessment. It is common knowledge that sum adjusted is deemed to be sum paid. Hence for the purposes of s. 244(1A) TDS and advance tax shall be treated as sums paid in pursuance of any order of assessment. Thus all the amounts paid upto the date of assessment, as also the net amount paid on assessment, all put together, if they are found to be in excess of the liability under the Act, the assessee shall be entitled to interest under s. 244(1A). 9. Thus, in the instant case, it was not right on the part of the AO to refuse interest on the amount of TDS of Rs. 19,205. We direct him to do so. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 76 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... position, no trading addition to the results declared could have been made in the present case. This view stands supported by Siddheswari Cotton Mills P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 953 (Cal) and R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Spg. and Wvg. Mills vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 260 (Bom) (relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee). 7. Shri Gargieya has further very rightly pointed out that at every stage of processing of cloth from yarn, the assessee has maintained the required registers. That fact has also been endorsed by the learned CIT(A). No defects have been pointed out by the AO in such record. The learned CIT(A) has further pointed out that the shrinkage did not exceed 4.9 in this year and the AO had wrongly taken that at 5.25 . Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition in question for very sound and cogent reasons. There is thus no force in this appeal. 8. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 73 - ITAT JAIPUR
Jurisdiction To Assess ... ... ... ... ..... er sub-section (4) of section 124. Sixthly, no injustice was caused to the assessee by making the assessment in his case by the ACIT. Finally, even if any error or defect in the jurisdiction exercised by the ACIT in this case be assumed, when in reality there is absolutely none, the assessment made would be at the most irregular and not even invalid what to speak of a nullity, and such irregularity in the assessment would stand cured and removed by the protective and saving provisions contained in sub-section (5) of section 124. 20. To sum up we hold that the assessment made by the ACIT in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration was fully valid and legal on facts as well as in law. The learned CIT(A) erred on fact and in law in cancelling such a valid assessment. We accordingly cancel his order on the point and direct him to decide other grounds on merits as raised by the assessee in his appeal before him. 21. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 72 - ITAT JAIPUR
Agricultural Income, Assessing Officer, Chargeable To Tax, Deduction In Respect, Insurance Premia, Interest On Bank Deposits, Life Insurance, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Provident Fund, Total Income
-
1995 (6) TMI 71 - ITAT JAIPUR
Being Heard, Dispose Of, High Court, Mistake Apparent From Record, Power To Rectify Mistakes, Service Of Notice
-
1995 (6) TMI 70 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... s necessary to make investment in that month. According to him, the investment made is attributable to the assessee s income chargeable to tax and as such the deduction claimed should have been allowed. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has argued that the deduction claimed cannot be allowed because the investment was made out of borrowed funds. 32. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that income of the assessee chargeable to tax during the year under consideration was adequate to make the aforesaid investment. Since the sum of Rs. 15,000 was seized by the Department, the assessee had no liquid funds for the purpose and she had borrowed money from her husband. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the investment made cannot be attributed to the income chargeable to tax. In my opinion, the deduction has been wrongly denied to the assessee and I hold accordingly. 33. In the result the cross-objection stand partly allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 69 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... stick to determine the reasonable percentage of yield as the yield depended on many factors, which had to be taken into consideration on case to case basis. In declaring yield of Chana Dal at 78.15 duly supported by the records maintained by the assessee, it cannot be said that there was any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. The assessee had furnished explanation, which has not been found to be false. The addition on account of low yield does not by itself prove that the assessee had concealed income. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had disclosed all the facts and the material which were necessary for the computation of its total income. In this view of the matter, we hold that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty for concealment of income. Our view is supported by the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the assessee. We, therefore, cancel the impugned penalty. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 68 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... , rent capitalisation method would be the appropriate method for valuation of this property. Before us, the assessee has filed working as per Schedule III of the WT Act as under . Rs. Rent 1,33,445 Less Municipal taxes and other taxes (48,706) Collection charges 6 (8,006) Other expenses,, i.e., (22,241) Insurance (Nil) Net maintainable rent 54,490 Multiplier 12.5 Valuation 6,81,125 8. In support of property taxes claimed, a photo copy of working of rate of such taxes issued by Public Relation Officer (Taxes), Assessment department of Municipal Corpn. of Delhi has been filed, which appears at page 3 of the second compilation. We direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the value of the property in question at Rs. 6,81,125 and amend the order accordingly. 9. There is yet another ground relating to a denial of exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act. The learned WTO is directed to allow the assessee s claim in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 67 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... the date of actual transfer which took place subsequently. Respectfully following the ratio of the aforementioned decisions of the Tribunal, we are inclined to hold that the land continued to be agricultural in character even by the date of transfer and, hence, the gains arising on the transfer of such agricultural lands is not assessable under the head capital gains . Accordingly the impugned addition made on account of capital gains stands deleted. 11. The second ground that arises for consideration in this appeal pertains to the legality of charging interest under ss. 139(8) and 217 in the reassessment. Applying the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Padma Timber Depot (1988) 67 CTR (AP) 109 (1988) 169 ITR 646 (AP) wherein it was held that interest under ss. 139(8) and 217 could not be validly charged in a reassessment, we hereby delete the interest charged under ss. 139(8) and 217 in this reassessment. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 66 - ITAT DELHI-D
Cash Credits, Foreign Exchange ... ... ... ... ..... ewhere in this order. The facts are similar. The creditworthiness of the donors have not been established. Genuineness of the gifts have also not been established. The present whereabout of the donors have also not been made available to the Assessing Officer so that proper enquiry could be made. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the order of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) has set aside the addition of Rs. 10,000 for verification and the revenue is not in appeal. 50. In the case of Smt. Sushma Arora, the gift of Rs. 5,000 has been treated to be as not genuine as the lady has not been found to be a lady of means. As has already been pointed out the donor is claimed to be widow unable to support her family. In these circumstances, the genuineness of the gift cannot be said to have been established as also the capacity of the donors to make the gift, we, therefore, decline to interfere. 51 to 54. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1995 (6) TMI 65 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... profits under the provisions of IT Act, 1961. We have perused the assessment order for the year under appeal and the order of the CIT(A) and we find that the information that would facilitate completion of assessment under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 had been made available by the assessee and no difficulty was felt by the Assessing Officer in making the assessment for lack of records. When there are no prescribed books of accounts to be maintained by the assessee and when the assessee has maintained such records enabling the Assessing Officer to make the assessment under the provisions of Act, s. 271A, in our view, is not attracted. This view is supported by the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Harilal Dhanwani and Papalal Gaur. We, respectfully following the aforementioned decisions of the Tribunal, hold that s. 271A is not attracted in this case. The penalty of Rs. 9,900 invested under s. 271A is accordingly deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 64 - ITAT DELHI
Backward Area, New Industrial Undertaking, Plant And Machinery, Profits And Gains, Raw Material, Sales Tax Act
-
1995 (6) TMI 63 - ITAT DELHI
Assessing Officer, Bona Fide, Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... see before the Assessing Officer. Even a confirmation letter from the said creditor was not filed before the Assessing Officer in respect of the said amount of Rs. 2,000. However, even this loan transaction of Rs. 2,000 is covered by the said proviso under Explanation 1. Since the facts relating to the said transaction and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by the assessee and that there was no material on which it could be held that it was not bona fide. Hence I hold that clause (b) of Explanation 1 under section 271(1) cannot be applied here. It cannot be said that the assessee has concealed particulars of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. On the facts and circumstances of the case I hold that the Assessing Officer was not at all justified in imposing the penalty of Rs. 15,185 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly I delete the impugned penalty. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 62 - ITAT DELHI
Assessing Officer, Gift Tax, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Minor Child, Unexplained Money
|
