|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 259
... ...
... ... ..... nment to anybody. It has been contended that the expenses are towards gift of small items along with sale of liquor bottles. The above two amounts aggregate to Rs. 47,939 (Rs. 45,501 2,438). The above aggregate leaves the balance of about Rs. 49,411. As such considering all the fact and circumstances of the case we are of the view that out of total public relation expenses of Rs. 97,350 a sum of Rs. 50,000 may on estimate basis, be reasonably treated as entertainment expenses. 21. Thus, in our view a total sum of Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 30,000 Rs. 50,000) should be treated as entertainment expenses instead of Rs. 1,27,350 as done by the authorities below. We, therefore, modify the orders of the authorities below accordingly. 22. In the result, the Revenue s appeal No. 1546/Jp/1995 for asst. yr. 1992-93 is dismissed, assessee s appeal No. 1561/Jp/1995 for asst. yr. 1992-93 is allowed and the assessee s appeal No. 2072/Jp/1992 for asst. yr. 1991-92 is partly allowed as indicated above.
-
2001 (3) TMI 257
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd. (2000) 158 CTR (Guj) 410, cited by the learned counsel for the assessee is distinguishable on facts and thus cannot be applied in the present case. It is also observed that the name of the assessee-company does not appear in the brochure published on the eve of the benefit match, a copy of which is placed on record. As such, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no mistake in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by the AO on this count. We, therefore, decline to interfere. 32. Ground No. 9 of ITA No. 421/Jp/1993 is not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee before us. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 32. Ground Nos. 10 and 11 of ITA No. 421/Jp/1993 as well as ground Nos. 11 and 12 of ITA No. 484/Jp/1993 are general and require no specific decision from us. 34. In the result, both these appeals preferred by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above.
-
2001 (3) TMI 255
Computation ... ... ... ... ..... s of the CIT(A) although during the course of the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 contending that no interest could be charged since the returned income was nil. We would like to make it clear at this stage that it is the Revenue which is in appeal before the Tribunal and we have upheld the view taken by the CIT(A) rejecting the relevant ground and the assessee at this stage cannot seek any relief over and above what has already been allowed by the first appellate authority since it is not a cross-objector or in cross-appeal before the Tribunal. In case, one was to consider the assessee s request with reference to r. 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, then the Tribunal can only confirm the view taken by the first appellate authority and here also no further relief can be allowed. 8. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 254
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... on of the assessments. But the reopening was done on the basis of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. It is true. The Revenue authorities are empowered to reopen a completed assessment on the basis of a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. But this power is not absolute. It should be within the time prescribed under the statute, otherwise there will be no finality and the reopening can go on, ad infinitum, which is against the canons of jurisprudence. Since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the assessment, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments for these years. The cross-objections filed by the assessee are liable to be allowed on this ground alone. Even otherwise, we have also decided the issue on merits in the appeals preferred by the Revenue, in favour of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 253
Unexplained Money ... ... ... ... ..... se. 2. On the matter being referred to the Third Member under section 255(4), the Hon ble President of the Tribunal acting as the Third Member has by means of an order dated 22-3-2001 agreed with the view taken by the ld. Accountant Member to delete the addition of Rs. 4,20,184. 3. Both the parties were heard with a view to implement the majority view and by means of the present order considering the majority opinion, the addition of Rs. 4,20,184 which is the subject matter of the assessee s appeal stands deleted. 4. As regards the Revenue s appeal, there was no difference of opinion between the ld. Members of the Division Bench and ld. Judicial Member agreed with the view expressed by the ld. Accountant Member to restore the addition of Rs. 3,76,114 to the file of the CIT (A), to reconsider the same. Nothing remains to be said on our part in the present order. 5. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed whereas the Revenue s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2001 (3) TMI 252
Rectification Of Mistakes, Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... , in fact, the original order as modified by various orders of the CIT(A) or revisionary order of the CIT, any case, the directions of the CIT(A) that he cannot rectify 254 or 251 order are contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hind Ware Industries Ltd., wherein, as aforesaid, the Supreme Court held that order sought to be amended does not necessarily mean the original order but can be an order including amended or rectified order. In this view of the matter also, we are of the opinion that the error committed by the Assessing Officer can be rectified and it would be within the time-limit of four years to be counted from 6-11-1995 in terms of the Supreme Court order in the case of Hind Ware Industries Ltd. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we uphold the action of the ITO restricting the reduction under section 80HHC to the amount of the gross total income of the assessee. 13. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 251
Deductions, Royalty ... ... ... ... ..... ll of the assessee for use outside India and in that process to receive income to augment the foreign exchange resources of the country. The assessee can also make available to the foreign enterprise, technical and professional services, expertise of which it possesses for earning foreign exchange for the country. Considering the facts involved in the present case and the provision of law, we are satisfied that there was material available on record to hold that the services were being rendered by the assessee from India which were being used in foreign countries by the respective importers and Government Companies. Regarding the genuineness of the service and the fact that the assessee was receiving income in convertible Foreign Exchange, no doubt has been raised by the Revenue. Considering the above, we are of the view that the provision of section 80-0 of the Act has to be applied for the nature of services rendered by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 250
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... r proceedings if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. In view of the above clear provisions of the statute, merely because 31st Dec, 1991, is mentioned against column No 6, whereas the correct expression should have been ended 31st March, 1992 , the assessment cannot be deemed to be invalid on this count alone. We, accordingly, see no merits even in this ground of cross-objection. 39. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the cross-objections filed by the assessee-companies are devoid of any legally sustainable basis. In any event, cross-objections only contain grounds in support of the CIT(A) s order. 40. In the result, cross-objections filed by the assessee-companies are dismissed. 41. To sum up, while the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed, cross-objections filed by the assessee-companies are dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 249
Valuation Of Closing Stock ... ... ... ... ..... also supported by our understanding of intent of the legislature and of the mischief which was sought to be remedied by the legislative amendments and, also by the principle of striking a balance between letter and spirit of law. On the application of this proposition to the case before us, however, we find that facts regarding commission and brokerage and RBI approvals for the same have not been examined at any stage. We, therefore, restore this matter to the file of the AO to examine the facts in the light of our observations earlier in this paragraph. The ground Nos. 6 and 7, therefore, succeed in principle. 23. Ground No. 8 is only an alternate ground and would have required adjudication only on rejection of ground No. 6 and 7. Since these two grounds are allowed, ground No. 8 becomes infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. 24. Ground No. 9 is general in nature and does not warrant and adjudication. Dismissed accordingly. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 248
... ...
... ... ..... preferring an appeal within the period of limitation, can wake up and prefer an appeal after a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court or the High Court which he considers as being favourable to him. Nor can the advice of his counsel that his case is not a fit one for appeal, which advice may turn out to be a mistaken one in the light of a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court or the High Court, be regarded as a sufficient ground for condoning such delay. 16. The above decision talks about a subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court or High Court. The assessee s case in the present appeal is on a weaker footing inasmuch as that it has preferred an appeal on the basis of a subsequent ruling by the Tribunal. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, we refuse to condone the delay. Since the appeal remains unadmitted on grounds of limitation, we need not go into the merits of the issue. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as that of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 247
... ...
... ... ..... for non-business purposes, the same may be disallowed. 60. The AO observed that the assessee admitted to have taken loans for non-professional purpose and thus added Rs. 36,000 in the block assessment. 61. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. Learned authorised representative contended that the expenses are reflected in the income and expenditure accounts which are filed alongwith the return of income. In fact, interest on the loans was disallowed by AO in the assessment proceedings under s. 143(3) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1996-97. Hence addition of Rs. 36,000 is not maintainable in block assessment. Learned Departmental Representative fairly admitted the factual position. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 36,000 in the light of the decision of Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in case of Sunder Agencies. 62. Ground Nos. 15 and 16 are general and ground Nos. 17 to 20 are already considered by us. 63. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 246
... ...
... ... ..... CTR (SC) 177 (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC) and of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cement Distribution Ltd. (1994) 119 CTR (Del) 496 (1994) 208 ITR 355 (Del), in addition to the various decisions cited by the learned Departmental Representative in this context. With respect, it has to be observed that the various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the assessee were rendered without considering the decision of the apex Court in the case of Sterling Foods and Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. Finally the Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee was not allowable for deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. 5. Facts being identical, following the above order of the Tribunal bases on not only of various High Courts but also on the Supreme Court, we hold that the authorities below were justified in not allowing the claim of deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act on the interest income earned by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 245
Interest chargeable ... ... ... ... ..... essee and the returned income was accepted by the Department, we are of the opinion that the provisions of s. 234B(2)(i) have not been properly implemented. We have seen the computation of income filed by the learned authorised representative which also go to justify the case of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has come to the conclusion on technical ground without stating a word regarding merits of the appeal before him. 4. The computation of income filed before us makes it amply clear that the mistake in the intimation was apparent from record and should have been rectified by the Department. To do justice and to settle the issue under consideration, we are of the opinion that the appeal of the assessee should be accepted. The appeal in question is against the order passed under s. 154 and is not against the levy of interest under s. 234B alone. Interest is charged in this case upto the date of payment made under s. 140A. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 244
Full And True Disclosure ... ... ... ... ..... Kumar Purshotam Dass, Jaitu, could not be said to be bogus, is justified or the approach adopted by the A.M. upholding the action of the AO in initiating proceedings under s. 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961, and restoring the matter back with regard to the genuineness of the loan transactions with M/s Ram Kumar Purshotam Dass to the file of the AO by relying on his dissenting order in ITA No. 293/Asr/1991 is correct? 2. In this regard, it is seen that similar issue was decided by me in ITA No. 293/Asr/1991 wherein I have upheld that order of the learned A.M. Consequently the order of the learned A.M. for these assessment years also is upheld whereby the action of the AO in reopening these four assessments under s. 147(a) has been approved and the matter has been restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the observations in ITA No. 293/Asr/1991 for asst. yr. 1981-82. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 243
Appellate Tribunal, Appealable Orders, Interpretatin Of Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... r, there should be no construction which deprives any party of a valuable right and the delay in filing of the appeal on the part of a party does gives to the respondent a valuable right from which he should not be deprived without a proper hearing. I have to further hold that one does not have to see the nomenclature of the order passed but the substance thereof and by this I would like to refer to the facts of the present case that even if an order passed by the Id. CIT(A) is purported to be one under section 249(3). It is in substance an order passed under section 250 and, therefore, appealable before the Tribunal. 17. In the final analysis, I agree with the learned Accountant Member in coming to the conclusion that he did on facts and law to hold that the appeals of the Revenue were competent and these were to be posted for hearing on merits. The Registry is directed to place these files before the Division Bench for passing orders in confirming with the majority opinion.
-
2001 (3) TMI 242
... ...
... ... ..... remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000, it is the claim of the assessee that the FDRs were purchased by Smt. Sureshta Rani from her own sources. At one stage, the A.O. asked the assessee to produce the copies of the FDRs to prove the purchase of these FDRs on or before the date of receipt of compensation money by the assessee. The assessee could not produce any evidence. Later on it was claimed that these FDRs were re-investment of the old FDRs but the same also could not be proved. Even admitting that this investment of Rs. 1,50,000 was made by Smt. Sureshta Rani from her own sources, the fact remains that the assessee received Rs. 4,74,724 and this amount of Rs. 1,50,000 has not been shown either in cash or otherwise. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 in any case has to be treated as assets of the assessee. I hold accordingly and uphold the, finding of the learned Accountant Member. 7. The matter will go back to the regular Bench for decision according to majority opinion.
-
2001 (3) TMI 241
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... e 9B of the Income-tax was reasonable. The learned Judicial Member, however, held that the Assessing Officer himself did not strictly interpret the terms and stipulations of agreement which is necessary for working out the minimum guarantee and directed that the same should be restored to his file. 6. In view of the limited difference of opinion, I am of the view that the learned Judicial Member was fully justified in restoring the matter back to the Assessing Officer so that the assessee will have full opportunity to substantiate its claim. Since the order of the CIT(A) stands reversed by both the Members, the only alternative is to allow the Assessing Officer to recompute the minimum guarantee on the basis of the terms and stipulations in the agreement and in doing so, reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee. I accordingly concur with the view of the learned Judicial Member. 7. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 240
Assessment, Additions To Income ... ... ... ... ..... he prevailing rate of profit from year to year as the turnover during the year is two times of assessment year 1985-86 where the rate of profit was 5.9. It is also seen that in the assessment year 1988-89, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 27,694 on account of unvouched purchases. When the matter came up to the Tribunal, the Tribunal (wherein the learned Accountant Member himself is the author) found that the g.p. rate of 6.796 on sale of Rs. 50,74,569 as compared to 5.2 shown on total sales of Rs. 43,70,724 in the case of the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year is quite reasonable and no, addition was called for. It is also seen that the Assessing Officer himself accepted g.p. rate of 5.8 for assessment year 1991-92. In that view of the matter also, there is no reason for making any addition. I, therefore, concur with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member. 8. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 239
Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... pholding the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and restoring the matter back with regard to the genuineness of the loan transactions with M/s. Ram Kumar Parshotam Dass to the file of the Assessing Officer by relying on his dissenting order in ITA No. 293/ASR/ 1991 is correct ? In this regard, it is seen that similar issue was decided by me in ITA No. 293/ASR/1991 wherein I have upheld the order of the learned Accountant Member. Consequently the order of the learned Accountant Member for these assessment years also is upheld whereby the action of The Assessing Officer in reopening these four assessment years under setion 147(a) has been approved and the matter has been restored back the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the observation in ITA No. 293 /ASR/ 1991 for assessment year 1981-82. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 238
... ...
... ... ..... ri Ravi Sahdev agreed to share the losses for the minority period, it does not lie on the revenue to object to his personal decision. Even in any case the accounts of the assessee were to be closed at the end of the financial year and profit and loss had to be determined on the basis of the deed of partnership. Automatically Shri Ravi Sahdev will share the loss, if there is any. However, that itself has become academic in view of the fact that the assessee-firm was assessed on a total positive income. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the partnership deed and it will not be justified to refuse registration to the assessee-firm on this very flimsy technical ground. The learned Judicial Member is fully justified in allowing the claim of registration for the year under consideration and continuation of the same for the assessment year 1985-86. I fully concur with the learned Judicial Member. 9. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
............
|
