|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 172 Records
-
1982 (6) TMI 92 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... , the Orissa High Court decesion in the case of Ganpat Rai Gajanand is the only case relied upon by the ld. Deptl. Rep. which is in respect of penalty. But even in that case, the limited issue was whether the addition made u/s 68 is the income and therein their Lordships came to a finding that once an addition is made u/s 68 the revenue cannot be required to prove that the amount added u/s 68 was not in fact the income of the assessee. In the instant case, we are on the issue whether the three cash credits out of which one was deleted by the Tribunal subsequently and the two got sustained on rejection of explanation in the course of assessment proceedings were concealed income and could warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Despite explanation, according to us, no penalty could be called for in the instant case and in the light of above discussion and for the reasons given by the AAC in his order, his action is confirmed. 9. In the result, the revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 91 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... th him to the extent of Rs. 23,000 and as explained by him, the disclosure made, particularly in the form of cash, covered the addition on account of understatement to the extent of Rs. 20,152. Thus, there could not have been any addition to the total income of the assessee for the year under appeal on the basis of the reasons given by the ITO in his assessment order. 17. The ld. AAC has made a very important observation that, apart from the inventories produced by the assessee, no independent enquiry has been made by the ITO to hold that the stocks shown were less than actually held at the time as no item has been detected which was purchased and not accounted for in sales or closing stock. We are, therefore, in agreement with the ld. Counsel for the as that at the instance of the revenue, there is no case made out for an interference in the order of the AAC. The deletion of Rs. 80,864 was fully justified. The order of the AAC is upheld. 18. Appeal of the revenue dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 90 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... g the order of the Addl. Commr. U/s 263. In the instant case, the land leased out was agricultural land as per the revenue s record and was being used by the assessee as such before it was leased out. Reading of the lease deed as a whole also shows that it would be used for agricultural purposes but since the lease is for 88 years it also does not exclude the possibility of using it to some other use. 9A. Simply because the assessee has not shown any agricultural income as her contention has been that she has been getting the said land cultivated by her servants, herself being in service, and mostly the agricultural produce has been just enough for household are not the facts to warrant action u/s 263 specially so when the reasons given in the show cause notice are quite different from the finding on which the CIT has arrived at in his s. 263 order. Accepting the contention of the assessee, we, therefore, cancel the order of the CIT. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 89 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Exemptions, Works Of Art ... ... ... ... ..... ile computing the net wealth of an assessee. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the Legislature has made it clear that ornaments made of gold or any other precious metals are not eligible for exemption under section 5(1). There is no dispute about the fact that the jewellery belonging to the assessee consisted of ornaments made of gold and or precious metals. Hence in view of clear provisions of Explanation 1 to clause (viii), it has to be held that the gold ornaments cannot be said to be eligible for exemption even if they are described as works of art. Law is fairly settled that fiscal statutes should not be examined in a petty fogging manner, but broadly with a view to allow the objective of the section to be fulfilled. Viewed thus, we are of the opinion that the lower authorities were justified in disallowing the assessee s claim for exemption under clause (xii) in respect of the jewellery owned by him. 7. The appeal by the assessee thus fails, and is hereby dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 88 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
... ...
... ... ..... residence the annual letting value is further reduced buy half the amount determined or sum of Rs. 1,800 and in any case if the resultant net annual letting value exceeds 10 of the total income of the owner the excess is always to be discarded. What have these exemptions and deductions to do with the market value of the property which would always be the some whether its owner is a rich man or poor man or whether it is constructed in the year 1960 or 1970 otherwise the prospective purchaser would have to see the rent that is actually fetched and not the rent recorded in the Municipal records. In fact, by taking this ground the assessee is trying to blow hot and cold in the same breath and trying to negative the original ground No. 1 in these appeals which we have decided in his favour. We, therefore, reject this ground both for want of maintainability at this stage and also on merits. 12. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed subject to the relief under ground No.1.
-
1982 (6) TMI 87 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... to the interests of the revenue and hence, the order of the CIT should be satisfied. Shri Ajit Sengupta, the Standing Counsel, on the other hand, stated that the ITO allowed 90 of the expenses without verifying the claim of the assessee. The expenses should only be allowed if they had been incurred and more so for the purposes of the business of the assessee. Under these circumstances, the order of the CIT should be maintained. 2. It appears that the order passed by the CIT is in order. The assessee received total amount of Rs. 1,73,815 and he has been allowed deduction for expense at Rs. 1,56,434. The expenses claimed by the assessee could be allowed provided as urged by the Standing Counsel, it is proved that the assessee had incurred expenses for the purpose of the business of the assessee. This fact was not verified by the ITO and under the circumstances, the CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment u/s 263 of the Act. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 86 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... o pay interest should accrue. The liability to pay interest is as certain as the liability to pay cess. As soon as the prescribed date is crossed without payment of the cess interest begins to accrue. It is not a penalty, for which provision has been separately made by s. 3(5). Nor is it a penalty within the meaning of s. 4, which provides for a criminal liability and a criminal prosecution. The penalty payable u/s 3(5) lies in the discretion of the collecting officer or authority. In the case of the penalty u/s 4, no prosecution can be instituted unless, u/s 5(1) a complaint is made by or under the authority of the case Commr. or the District Magistrate. In truth, the interest provided for u/s 3(3) is in the nature of compensation paid to the Govt. for delay in the payment of cess. This ground is therefore entitled to succeed. 9. As mentioned above, the third ground was not pressed before us and is accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal is partly allowed as above.
-
1982 (6) TMI 85 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... g wrong if the AAC after taking into consideration the certificate only, estimated the income of the assessee which was fair. Once the income declared by the assessee is not supported by the proper books of account, the only option is to make honest estimate of the income of the assessee. Under the above circumstances, the AAC has not violated the Rule 46A but he has made, according to his opinion, the honest estimate of professional income of the assessee. The AAC has estimated the gross income from the profession at Rs. 45,000 against gross income declared by the assessee at Rs. 32,040. The assessee, even in the preceding year, disclosed the gross income of Rs. 41,996 from the profession. Under the above circumstances, the income estimated by the AAC appears to be slightly on higher side and the same is estimated at Rs. 42,000. 6. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed. The assessee s gross objection is allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 84 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... ed by taking 12-1/2 years purchase of the net yield. The excess of unbuilt area over a specified area has however not been taken into account while working out the above value in terms of sub-r. (3) of r. 1BB. It is also not clear from the working given at p. 50 whether Rs. 8,683 is the actual Corporation tax of it is a hypothetical working nor is it known as to what is the municipal valuation of the property with reference to which the said corporation tax has been worked out. The interests of justice, in our opinion, requires that we should set aside the order of the ld. AAC on this account and should restore the matter back to him with the direction that he would redetermine the value of the property bearing in mind the provisions of Rule 1BB. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. AAC and direct him to recompute the value of the property in terms of r. 1BB. In the result, appeal Nos. 925 to 928 (Cal) of 1981 are treated for statistical purposes as partly allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 83 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... Therefore, it was pleaded that the estimate was not untrue. The contention was accepted by the CIT(A) who observed that the levy of interest under s. 216 was not to be made mechanically. It is only after the rates were increased by the State Govt. the assessee filed a revised estimate and consequently it was not an under-estimate of advance tax. Therefore, he deleted the levy of interest under s. 216 of the IT Act, 1961. After considering the submissions of the ld. Deptl. as well as the ld. Rep. for the assessee, we hold that the assessee could not have taken for granted the increased rate of charges which depends upon the approval of the State Govt. It is only after such approval, the assessee had duly filed a revised estimate. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue that the assessee had filed an under-estimate of advance tax on 12th Sept., 1975 and consequently, the levy of interest is not justified. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 82 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... e, therefore, of the opinion that it is a case for further enquiry within the meaning of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, Delhi-I 1975 CTR (Del) 61 (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del). Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ITO shall look into the sale memo, the complete details of the utensils afresh and shall give the assessee an opportunity of showing the actual use to which he was putting them too and then decide the nature of the assets for the purpose of determining as to whether they were capital assets within the meaning of s. 2(14) of the IT Act. The addition should not, however, be made straightway as the Commr. has done. At the same time, the mere contention of the assessee in this behalf cannot be accepted per se. The matter has to be looked into afresh in the light of our aforesaid observations. 6. For statistical purposes, this appeal shall be deemed to have been allowed as such.
-
1982 (6) TMI 81 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... the minor for these years and the taxes collected by the ITO having in fact to be refunded to the assessee It is well settled that there is no inherent right of appeal. Appeals available have to be provided under the statutory provisions and are confined to the distinctive limits set by these provisions Sec. 25(1) is unambiguous in this regard and permits an appeal only where an assessee is aggrieved by the order of an IT authority Where as assessee has not only not to pay an extra rupee to wards tax but on the contrary on account of the order of the CIT(A) has actually to get a refund the cannot be said to be aggrieved at all. The IT Act takes note of only a grievance in terms of money and not other wise. I have no hesitation, therefore in holding that the assessee, who is not aggrieved in terms of s. 253(1) has no right of appeal before the ?xml namespace prefix st2 / st2 place Tribunal I. /st2 place therefore dismiss the appeals as incompetent 3. The appeals are dismissed
-
1982 (6) TMI 80 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... penalty which was intended to be imposed by the ITO was only Rs. 1,964. However, he has sustained the penalty of Rs. 48,988 by adding another default, namely, that u/s 273(c) to the default u/s 273(a). We find that the ITO has categorically passed the order u/s 273(a). Had the ITO intended to penalise the assessee u/s 273(c) as well, he was duty bound to give a notice of hearing to the assessee on the said point and hear the objections raised by the assessee. Hence, the CIT (Appeals), in our opinion, was not justified in extending the scope of the order passed by the ITO to another default under a different section, which was not contemplated by the ITO. Hence, the minimum penalty imposable under the Act, namely, Rs. 1,964 alone could have been upheld by the CIT (Appeals). We, therefore, reduce the quantum of penalty to the a minimum imposable u/s 273(a) alone, after given effect to the order of the Tribunal in quantum appeal. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... ling in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. cannot, therefore, apply to the present case and, on the other hand, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. will apply. Therefore, respectfully following the ruling of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, relied upon by the assessee and referred to earlier, we accept the contention of the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commr. (Appeals) and direct that the relief u/s 80HH shall be computed on an amount calculated with reference to the total income of the current year without deducting Rs. 5,01,434 (being unabsorbed depreciation) and Rs. 2,45,317 (being unabsorbed development rebate) brought forward from the earlier year. We direct that the assessment be modified accordingly. The ground is, therefore, decided in favour of the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1975-76 is allowed in part and the appeal for the asst. yr. 1976-77 is dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 78 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. cannot, therefore, apply to the present case and, on the other hand, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. will apply. Therefore, respectfully following the ruling of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, relied upon by the assessee and referred to earlier, we accept the contention of the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commr. (Appeals) and direct that the relief under s. 80HH shall be computed on an amount calculated with reference to the total income of the current year without deducting Rs. 5,01,434 (being unabsorbed depreciation) and Rs. 2,45,317 (being unabsorbed development rebate) brought forward from the earlier year. We direct that the assessment be modified accordingly. The ground is, therefore, decided in favour of the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1975-76 is allowed in part and the appeal for the asst. yr. 1976-77 is dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 77 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... ould resist collection of the enhanced tax, after rectification, before, if need be, the Recovery Officers. The valid order is the rectified order. Secondly, if the orders of the WTO were to be modified in appeal by the Commr. (Appeals) or Tribunal or even disturbed in a writ proceedings by the High Court or Supreme Court, it would be presumptuous to hold that the Commr. exercise his revisionary powers u/s 25(2) over the order of the WTO dt. 23rd Feb, 1979 so modified by the Commr. (Appeals), Tribunals, High Court on even by the Supreme Court. It may be noted that there was time for the AAC or the Commr. to whom an appeal is filed against the rectified order to have given his appellate decision early. 6. We have no hesitation in holding that the order of the Commr. u/s 25(2) is devoid of jurisdiction in the present case and should be cancelled. We do so accordingly. 7. In the light of the above, we do not go into the merits of the case. 8. The assessee s appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 76 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... ould resist collection of the enhanced tax, after rectification, before, if need be, the Recovery Officers. The valid order is the rectified order. Secondly, if the orders of the WTO were to be modified in appeal by the Commr. (Appeals) or Tribunal or even disturbed in a writ proceedings by the High Court or Supreme Court, it would be presumptuous to hold that the Commr. exercise his revisionary powers u/s 25(2) over the order of the WTO dt. 23rd Feb, 1979 so modified by the Commr. (Appeals), Tribunals, High Court on even by the Supreme Court. It may be noted that there was time for the AAC or the Commr. to whom an appeal is filed against the rectified order to have given his appellate decision early. 6. We have no hesitation in holding that the order of the Commr. u/s 25(2) is devoid of jurisdiction in the present case and should be cancelled. We do so accordingly. 7. In the light of the above, we do not go into the merits of the case. 8. The assessee s appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 75 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... n which the Trustees has substantial interest. The details of the donations totalling to Rs. 26,501 are available o these two Rs. 5,001 and Rs. 5,000 were by cheque on the Bank of India dt. 24th October, 1973 and 25th October, 1973, but both collected on 25th October, 1973. There were two hundies dt. 1st April, 1973 and 26th October, 1973, but it is noted that they were realised on the very same days. There was factually, therefore, no question of any money belonging to the Trust being held by these concerns in which the Trustees were interested. The alleged donations were collected by the assessee during the previous year under appeal, thus taking the amounts out of the user by these concerns. While on the one hand the above will render the provisions of s. 13(3) inapplicable, on the other side, the fact that if the cheques and hundies were not collected, they would not become effective donations to be considered for taxability at all, would also be fatal to the ITO s case.
-
1982 (6) TMI 74 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Profits In Lieu, Superannuation Fund ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, has statutory force. But the rule merely directs that tax should be deducted at source. It nowhere declares that it represents income. In this, the provisions of the 1961 Act are different from the 1922 Act where section 58S provided for such a deeming charge, as Shri Khare pointed out. 20. So, we come to a finding that these payments do not represent income. 21. Assuming the above analysis is wrong and it is income, then, in so far as such income can be taxed as salary income only, and the definition of salary excludes these payments, it cannot be taxed under any other head. This is the view expressed by the Tribunal, Bombay Bench A , in J.S. Vasan v. Fourth ITO IT Appeal No. 678 of 1980 dated 13-2-1981 . 22. In view of this finding, we hold that the receipt is not income and the assessee is entitled to the refund of the tax deducted at source, if it is not adjusted against the tax dues already. So, the departmental appeal is dismissed and cross-objection allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 73 - ITAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... of valuing the stock of raw-films at the beginning of the year as well as at the end of the year at 10 less the market value its income from year to year got properly computed. Under s 145 it is the duty of the ITO to compute the correct income of the assessee for each assessment year. Where an assessee depart from the regular method followed by him for year to year this resulting in an underestimate of the income for any particular year, it is open to the ITO to compute the correct income for that year. Alternatively, if the assessee wanted to value the closing stock of raw-films at the cost of Nil for this year when the question is brought up for the first time for consideration, he would be bound to value the opening stock also under the same basis with the necessity to value the stock from year to year on the same basis in future. Either way, the sum of Rs.3, 87, 902 has to be included as the income of the year under appeal. 11. The departmental appeal is partly allowed.
|
