|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 103 Records
-
1980 (5) TMI 63 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... at something being missing establishing concealment on the part of the assessee, the assessee s case squarely falls within the ratio of the decisions of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC) and CIT vs. Khday Eswarsa and Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295 (1972) 83 ITR 369 (SC). 5. As regards the contention of the Deptl. Representative that the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) is applicable, I cannot accept that contention also. The ITO while issuing the notice under s. 271(1)(c) did not mention that the case is covered by the Explanation too. In order that the penalty be justified in law, charges must be specified and the charge against the assessee is not found under s. 271(1)(c), as I have held that s. 271(1)(c) is not attributed. I cannot enlarge the scope of the said section. I, therefore, held that the Explanation is not attracted as contended by the Deptl. Representative. The penalty is deleted and the appeal allowed. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 62 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... as was before the Supreme Court also arose in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Misrimul Sowcar (1979) 119 ITR 123 (Mad). In this case also, it was found that the interest was paid on the accumulated profits which were subsequently converted into loans. This case, therefore stands distinguishable from the facts of the assessee s case. In the assessee s case, the interest was paid on various deposits which were brought in by the minors out of the gifts received by them. Similarly, the case of S. Srinivasan vs. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 315 (Mad) is also distinguishable from that of the assessee. I, therefore, uphold the finding of the AAC that the interest payable on the deposits brought in by the minors could not be treated as income arising directly or indirectly from the admission of the minors to the benefits of partnership in a firm so as to attract the provisions of s. 64(1)(iii) of the Act and be included in the total income of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 61 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... eme Court in CIT vs. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka (1962) 46 ITR 86 (SC). In fact the conversion of the investment in shares into stock-in-trade of the business had already been accepted by the Department for the asst. yr. 1975-76. The method of calculation of loss, however, is not in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. In accordance with the aforesaid judgment the difference has to be found between the sale price of the shares and the market price prevailing on1st April, 1974when the shares were converted as stock-in-trade of the business. The AAC, therefore, was not justified in directing the ITO to allow the full loss of Rs. 12,001 claimed by the assessee. It would direct the ITO to work out the loss in the light of the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court and allow that loss only as business loss. 6. In the result, for statistical purposes ITA No. 984 (Chandi)/1979 shall be deemed to have been partly allowed and ITA No.986 (Chandi)/1979 is dismissed as being infructuous.
-
1980 (5) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... appears to us that lower authorities were not quite justified in refusing registration to the firm firstly by shutting out the reception of the deed of rectification and secondly by basing their view merely on the original deed dt.27th April, 1973of partnership. We would take the view that the assessee firm was entitled to registration for the asst. yr. 1974-75. In terms of s. 184 (4) the application for registration had been made by the assessee before the end of the previous year of assessment. The assessee was also entitled in view of s. 185(2) to put the rectification deed, for the delay in the production of which, it had offered due explanation. The rectification deed, having been executed on12th Feb., 1974could not be brushed aside as an afterthought or improvement of the case. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is held to be entitled to registration for the asst. yr. 1974-75. The ITO will take necessary action on that basis.
-
1980 (5) TMI 59 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... are of loss of an AOP was not prohibited under any provisions of the IT Act. In this connection the assessee relied on CIT vs. S.K.S. Rajamani Nadar 1976 CTR (Mad) 222 (1977) 109 ITR 258 (Mad) and Ganga Metal Refining Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1973) 87 ITR 627 (AP). The AAC conceded the assessee s contention and the Department is in appeal before us against the said action of the AAC. 2. The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the Calcutta High Court s decision reported as (1968) 67 ITR 771 (Cal) whereas the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on CIT vs. S.K.S. Rajamani Nadar (1979) CTR (Mad) 222 (1977) 109 ITR 258 (Mad) and Ganga Metal Refining Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 87 ITR 627 (AP). 3. We have heard the parties and considered the matter. It is well settled that where two views are possible, one which favours the subject has to be preferred. We accordingly uphold the action of the AAC and reject the Department s appeal. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 58 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... per of any doubt raised on the cardinal factual points relevant. There is also the fact that the assessee keeps books of account and the balance sheets are available. It is true, no doubt that the loans were borrowed in the period November 1969 to September 1970 and the investments had also taken place in that period. The loans borrowed were Rs. 2,50,000 in all as per the details furnished at page 1 of the paper-book and the total investments in the 400 shares were Rs. 2,84,000 as per the details given at page 2 of the paper-book. (Shri Aggarwal explains that the additional sum of Rs. 34,000 had come out of the assessee s own savings). There had been no manner of doubt expressed by the authorities below on the genuineness of these transactions. It cannot be left to the Revenue to ask for investigation into such primary factual aspects at the end of the day. We would, therefore, allow the assessee s claim. The assessment shall be modified accordingly. 8. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 57 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... case to case depending upon the problem, confronting the company in the particular year, the only reason is stated by the lower authorities for the reduction of the remuneration paid to the working Director is not comparable with the remuneration paid to the Managing Director. The actual work done by the Director should be the consideration for fixing the remuneration. If in the legitimate needs of the business of the assessee it is considered that the working Director should also be paid the remuneration equal to that of the Managing Director, no reduction in such remuneration can be justifiably made. The assessee has explained the circumstances under which the remuneration for Mr. Mool Chand Garg has been fixed at Rs. 1000 and we do not find that the Revenue has made out a reasonable basis to justify such reduction. The addition of Rs. 1200 out of remuneration paid to the working Director made by the AAC is therefore deleted. 12. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 56 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... sessee had not taken over the businesses carried on by the predecessor firm, but only a portion thereof, i.e., the business at Calicut and hence the principle enunciated in the above decisions will not apply. I am unable to appreciate this contention. The point to be noticed is that the business taken over by the assessee firm, namely, cloth business at Calicut was being carried on by the predecessor firm and that the outstandings in respect of which deduction is claimed by the assessee, on the ground that they have become irrecoverable, related to such business. Therefore, the principle enunciated in the above-mentioned decisions will be equally applicable. 15. For the above reasons, I hold that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 65,026, it being not disputed that these outstandings had become bad and irrecoverable during the relevant previous year. The assessment will be modified in accordance with the above findings. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 55 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... reement with the AAC that s. 2(1)(a) lays down two conditions and if both the conditions are satisfied, there is no option but to hold that the Income from such a plot of land will constitute agricultural income. These two conditions are (1) the rent or revenue should be derived from the land and (2) the said land (a) is situate in India and (b) is used for agricultural purposes. The conditions, to my mind, obviously refer to the previous year and if the land is used for agricultural purposes in the previous year if it satisfies other conditions, it will be immaterial as to what use it was put to in the earlier or subsequent years. Moreover the land in dispute is also assessed to land revenue. Having regard to the above discussion, I further hold that the decisions relied upon by the Deptl. Rep. are not applicable and the comments quoted by the AAC in his order from Kanga and Palkhivala Law and Practice of Income Tax are applicable. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 54 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... e ITO had allowed interest on the borrowings fully inspite of the fact that the matter required further investigation would show that the ITO was fully dissatisfied about the claim on the assessee. The fact that in reassessment proceedings under s. 34(1)(b) referred to above the ITO proceeded to disallow only a portion of the interest not on ground non-genuineness of payment but on ground that the payment was not allowable as it did not relate to assessee s business would support the inference that the payment of interest was otherwise genuine. If this much is clear, we fail to see how the facts which obtain in the instant case, how it could be said that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts in regard to the assessment in question. We therefore for the reason set out above come to the conclusion as the CITA that the reassessment proceedings were not validly taken and therefore liable to be cancelled. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 53 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... It cannot be said that there has been an inordinate delay between the drawing up of the balance sheet of the firm and the filing of the individual wealth-tax return. Similarly for the year ending 31st March, 1973 the balance sheet on record shows that it was drawn up on 20th Dec., 1973. The return was filed on 9th Jan., 1974. For the year ending 31st March, 1974 the balance sheet on record shows that it was drawn on 30th Nov., 1974 and the return was filed on 20th Dec., 1974. For these two years also it cannot be said that there has been inordinate delays. It is true that the assessee did not highlight these itself before the officers below but where a material is on record it is open to the assessee to urge that fact in support of his plea. Considering all these facts we are of the view that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the belated filing of the returns, viz., the absence of a proper accountant, and accordingly allow the appeals and cancel the orders of penalty.
-
1980 (5) TMI 52 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not furnishing the return in time and, therefore, he cancelled the penalty. It is against this order of the AAC, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 2. The D.R. argued that the assessee was not only liable for delay but neglected to seek extension from the WTO for filing the return and, therefore, he made a submission that the finding of the AAC was arbitrary and was not carefully reasoned out. The counsel for the assessee relied on the finding of the AAC. Having heard both the parties we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the assessee. We are in agreement with the AAC and uphold his finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause which accounted for the delay. Failure to apply for the extension will not take away immunity from the liability. In our view it does not add to the liability. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the AAC and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 51 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... sweet will of his principals will have to humour and comply with his wishes. Even if there had not been a shortage and the principals had caused a debit for not good reason except their humour on pain of discontinuing their supplies in future, if the agent did not accept the debit, there would not be any consequence other then so has emerged in the present sequence of the events in the case. The assessee in the present case would be left with no alternative to put up with the loss. In our view the claim of loss made by the assessee is genuine and bona fide one. It occurred in the course of carrying on the business and, therefore, it was a loss incidental to the carrying on of a business. The claim for loss will not suffer on account of any consideration arriving for the alleged collusion based in our view, only on surmise and conjecture. In view of this finding we cannot but uphold the finding of the CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 4. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 50 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... hit Fund Co came to grief. The assessee in his letter to the ITO in para 3 had also clearly brought out the fact that he was feeling insecure about his investment with the Chit Fund of the Finance Co. Viewing in this factual background and considering the authorities cited on behalf of the assessee, I have no doubt that the loss of Rs. 9,500 suffered by the assessee was a business loss, which was deductible while computing this income from business. The authorities cited by the assessee are Addl. CIT Madras vs. BMS (P) Ltd (1), and CIT, vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd (2). The principles enunciated by Madras and Bombay High Courts clearly apply in the facts and circumstances of the assessee s case and applying them, I hold that the loss of Rs. 9,500 in the facts and the circumstances of the assessee s case was an allowable one. I direct for the deduction of the amount of Rs. 9,500 from the income computed by the ITO and allow the assessee s appeal. 4. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 49 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... e houses as they had become very old. The assessee was only a lessee in the premises. Their Lordships held that the expenditure was revenue in nature and was liable to be deducted from the profits of the firm for the year. Having heard both the parties, we are of the view that the submissions of the assessee are more well founded in reason and fact. The replacement of roof can, by no means, be said to bring a new advantage of enduring value to an assessee who is a tenant and occupying the premises for carrying on the business. A new roof is like an old roof which gives protection against sun wind and rain. What new advantage could the assessee secure by reconstructing the roof which had caved in. Similar, is our finding for the cost of wiring and electric fittings, amounting to Rs. 8,808. We, therefore, sustain the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while that of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 48 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ts of Shri Ramanlal Bhogilal and Shri Shah Kamleshbhai Tokarshi. There is no material on the record before us to controvert the aforesaid affidavits. Therefore, we hold that the claim of the assessee is substantiated. In this situation of the matter, we hold that the amount of Rs. 4,000 is the expenditure on the mess provided to the customers by the partners and the amount paid to the partners at Rs. 800 each is nothing else then reimbursement to the partners for the expenditure incurred by them for providing mess to the customers of the firm. Therefore, in view of our above discussion and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the authorities below are unjustified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. Hence we set aside their orders and thereby allow the claim of the assessee being fair and reasonable and thereby delete the addition made and sustained by the authorities below amounting to Rs. 4,000. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 47 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... e doubt as to the validity of the proceedings would exist. If the order is not valid as suspected by the Commissioner he has to take action in setting it aside and correcting the mistake within the period of limitation as allowed. If the order is valid it would be possible to the assessee to get the validity settled at any future stage. If this happens after the period of limitation also the assessee would not suffer. The Commissioner, therefore, is correct in taking the view that the mere doubts to the validity caused prejudice to the Revenue and would also cast a doubt on the erroneous nature of the ITO s order. Without, therefore, going into the correctness or otherwise of the applicability, the mandatory nature of such applicability etc. of the procedure in s. 144B, we have no hesitation in holding that the Commissioner was correct in coming to the conclusion that the ITO s order for these years were erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. 5. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 46 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ure and it did not seek to alter the position of law existing before that amendment. 4. But in this case, we do not have to express any view on this matter, because the assessee is entitled to succeed on his second contention. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, even if it is to be held that the estimate was filed one day late, as the estimate was filed and the advance-tax paid before 1st day of April, next following the financial year in which the advance-tax was payable, no interest could be levied under s. 217. The assessee is supported in this view by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bharat Textile Works vs. ITO(1). In fact, the CIT has referred to this decision but has not followed it on the ground that the Department has not accepted it. We are bound by the decision referred to above. Respectfully following the decision, we hold that the CIT was not justified in revising the order of the ITO in this case. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Drawback - Fixation of special rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... stoms duty on DMT. This means that the attack is on the quantum of rate fixed and not on the description of goods. To meet such hard cases Rule 7 is provided and not Rule 6. Rule 6 applies to goods in respect of which no rate is fixed. In other words the goods are such that they do not fall within any of the description of goods under different sub-serial numbers. Excepting the first, that is 25.01, rates for all other sub-serial numbers were fixed. Unfortunately, under Rule 7 the petitioner admittedly does not come within the area of eligibility for refixation of a rate because the rate of drawback allowed to him is not less than three-fourths of the duties paid on the materials and components used in the manufacture of exported goods. As I have noticed above the rules are not under challenge. I do not find any illegality in the view taken by the respondents that the petitioner s case was covered by Rule 7 and the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions of the said rule.
-
1980 (5) TMI 44 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
P.V.C. battery separators classifiable under T.I. 15A ... ... ... ... ..... manufacturers have been classified by the proper officers under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Government observes that the goods in question though microporous in nature and have parallel ribs on one side, are distinctly identifiable rigid P.V.C. sheets which have to be further cut to exact shape and size in order to make them suitable for use as battery separators and are, therefore, distinguishable from battery separators as such. The aforesaid Trade Notice is therefore, also not applicable to the goods in question. The petitioners have also not furnished any evidence to prove that the goods in question are identical to goods produced by other manufacturers whose goods have been held to be classifiable under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In view of the above, Government of India find no reason to interfere with the order-in-appeals. The two revisions applications are, therefore, rejected.
|
