|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 168 Records
-
1985 (11) TMI 88 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessment, General, Reassessment, Time Limit For Completion of, Business Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... outside India.... Commission payment to Nutmeat Trading Co. is not covered under section 35B(1)(b)(iii). However, as regards the disallowance of weighted deduction on the commission payment of Rs. 28,434 purported to have been made to Gibbs Nathaniel of Canada is concerned, the assessee is not able to place before us that the facts on which the decision of the ITO is based are wrong. Under the circumstances, we have to hold that the finding of the ITO that the amount paid to Gibbs Nathaniel of Canada, satisfies the description of trade discount and not a commission payment. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the commission agent as well as the purchaser cannot be one and the same and, therefore, the disallowance of weighted deduction on an amount of Rs. 28,434 is to be upheld. The appeal of the department on the question of weighted deduction has to fail. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the department is dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 87 - ITAT COCHIN
Rectification Of Mistakes, Apparent From Record, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... , they would have provided so as has been done in clause (xxi) of sub-section (1) of section 5 which exempts that portion of the net wealth of a company established with the object of carrying on an industrial undertaking in India within the meaning of Explanation to clause (d) of section 45, as is employed by it in a new and separate unit set up after the commencement of this Act by way of substantial expansion of its undertaking or in clauses (ix) and (x) of sub-section (1) of section 5 which speak of the tools, implements and equipment used by the assessee for cultivation and tools and instruments necessary to enable the assessee to carry on his profession or vocation . Since we have taken the above view, with due respect we beg to differ from the view taken by their Lordships of the Madras High Court in the case of P.T.N. Shenbagamoorthy. We, therefore, direct the WTO to allow the assessee exemption under section 5(1)(xxxi). 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 86 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... re, upheld. 8. With regard to the cash credit of Rs. 1,380 the explanation given was that partly it represented her pin money and partly sale of potatoes. The ITO held that purchase/sale vouchers of potatoes were not shown and the availability of pin money was also without any evidence. He, therefore, levied penalty with reference to this amount which has been upheld by the AAC. In our opinion, the assessee deserves to succeed so far as penalty with reference to pin money of Rs. 1,380 is concerned. Pin money by a lady is her savings of the amount given by her husband for household expenses. The ITO has not brought on record as to what type of evidence was required for explaining a part of the pin money out of Rs. 1,380. The assessee was not regularly dealing in sale of potatoes so as to maintain vouchers for sale. In our opinion, no penalty with reference to this amount was exigible. Penalty of Rs. 1,380 is, therefore, deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 85 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... t year anticipated profit was shown and in the second year when actual profit was known, adjustment was allowed either by application or adding the difference. So much so, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the time of hearing of this application that for the year 1974-75 identical addition was proposed to be made by the ITO but the IAC under s. 144B proceedings accepting the consistency of accounting method adopted by the assessee, ordered the deletion of the same and he placed on record copy of directions under s. 144B issued by the IAC. Strangely enough, the addition proposed by the ITO on the basis of consistency of accounting method was ordered to be deleted by the then IAC, who subsequently became CIT and strangely enough, for the reasons best known to him, he preferred a question for reference under s. 256 (1), which apparently is misconceived and not referable. The request of the concerned CIT is, therefore, rejected. 5. Reference application is dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 84 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... il. 1985. It will, therefore, not be applicable for earlier yeaRs. If the intention of the legislature was to make this amendment applicable retrospectively, it should have specifically mentioned a date as in the case of s. 84 or other provisions which have specifically been excepted. There was no need to mention the date 1st April. 1985 specifically or no date of application should have been mentioned at all so as to consider the Explanation as explanatory right from the beginning. In view of these discussion, I am of the opinion that Expln. 2 is not retrospective but prospective w.e.f. 1st April 1985 only. It is therefore, not applicable for the three assessment years under appeal, In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in confirming the order of the AAC holding that there were mistakes of law apparent from the record which the ITO should have rectified by invoking the provisions of s. 154. 7. In the result, all the three appeal by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 83 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Reassessment, Non-Disclosure Of Primary Facts ... ... ... ... ..... married with the assessee. He had three sons and three daughters. From the statement of Mata Nand, first son, it is not indicated as if he or any of his brothers was thrown out of the family. Under the circumstances, to hold a deposit of Rs. 40,000 only in the singular name of his son-in-law, the assessee is just unbelievable. The assessee could have some strength in his contention if the FDR was in the joint names of the assessee and his father-in-law. Then, apparently in the wake of proving the truth regarding heavy amount of Rs. 40,000 taken by the assessee as deposit, originally it was mentioned by him that his father-in-law owned 25 acres of land, then it was mentioned that he actually owned 15 acres whereas in the statement of his brother-in-law, it was mentioned to be only 11 acres. In the light of the above discussion and for the reasons given by the two lower authorities, we confirm the finding given in the order of the AAC. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 82 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment, Time Limit For Completion of ... ... ... ... ..... teria with section 271(1)(c), nowhere makes it mandatory that the ITO is required to record any reason before applying this provision. But at the same time, instant case still on the basis of two opinions and also on the basis that it is protective assessment, the revenue could not get any support from this case also. Hyderabad Bench decision in Prakash Yarn Trading Co. s case, to some extent, supports the contention of the revenue, but, against that, we have already mentioned, there is a Special Bench decision and also a decision of this very Bench. Similarly, the Madras High Court decision in Manjappa Textiles case also cannot carry the revenue s case any further. To summarise, mainly on our decision in the case of Smt. Jyoti Dhillon, in which all these matters are discussed at length, the assessee s contentions are accepted and the assessment is annulled. Since we have reversed the finding of the learned AAC, the assessee succeeds. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 81 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Title, Extent And Commencement, Resident Of Sikkim, Income Accruing Or Arising In India ... ... ... ... ..... es for discharge of his duties and so also a procedure has been laid down for removal from his office. Thus, he is obviously an employee of the Statte and in no secse of the term he can claim as self-employed without exercise of any control over his work. Because of the nature of his work he has been made independent and supreme within the sphere of his duties insamuch as that he is paid out of the consolidated fund without any voting but at the same time he has to take an oath that he shall uphold the Constitution the laws. 11. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assesse that the word salary appearing in aritcle 221 and in the Second Schedule is used in popular sense and in fact the remuneration paid to the Judge of the High Court is not salary. 12. We, therfore, hold that the income of the assessee should be assessed as non-resident and it is deemed to accrue in India within the meaning of section 9. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 80 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
... ...
... ... ..... llowed upto the date of refund. The Department preferred appeals against the said decision of the CIT (A) but this Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A) on the strength of the decisions in the case of Rayons Traders Pvt. vs. ITO and Anr. (1980) 19 CTR (Mad) 204 (1980) 126 ITR 135 (Mad) and National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. (1981) 130 ITR 928 (Del). 4. After hearing the authorised representatives for the parties, we are of the opinion that no referable question of law arises in these reference applications. The provisions of s. 214 (2) are quite clear and do not require any interpretation. moreover, the view taken by this Tribunal is based on the decisions of the Delhi and Madras High Court. On the other hand, there is no contrary opinion of any other High Court. In such circumstances, we do not fell that a reference should be made to the Hon ble High Court. 5. As such, the reference applications are rejected.
-
1985 (11) TMI 79 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Deductions, Intercorporate Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... uestion was to earn dividend income as well as interest income. Consequently, this decision is of no assistance. In that case, the expenses involved had absolutely no connection with the earning of the income. Such is not the case here. For the same reasons, decision in CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia 1966 61 ITR 663 (Bom.) cited on behalf of the assessee, is of no assistance to the assessee. The learned representative for the assessee has also relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. 1978 112 ITR 701, Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 1979 118 ITR 243 (SC) and Addl. CIT v. Laxmi Agents (P.) Ltd. 1980 125 ITR 227 (Guj.). We have, carefully gone through the decisions and for the reasons already given, we find that the principle laid down in these decisions is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We accordingly, confirm the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 11. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 78 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Chargeable Profits ... ... ... ... ..... 0AA having been introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, to overrule the effect of Supreme Court decision in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. s case. It was stated therein that the legislative intention was only to exempt surtax on the amount of dividends actually included in the total income and the High Courts rulings had resulted in giving an unintended benefit to companies in respect of dividends received by them from domestic companies. It is thus clear that if the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. was wrongly decided, as now held by the Supreme Court, then the High Court decisions under the Surtax Act were also wrongly decided. Since section 80AA has been held to be only clarificatory, the Explanation to rule 1 would also be held to be only clarificatory and not substantive. 10. We, therefore, allow the departmental appeal on ground No. 1 and accept the departmental contentions. 11. This para is not reproduced here as it involves minor issue . 12. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 77 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Charitable Or Religious Trust, Exemption Of Income From House Property Held Under ... ... ... ... ..... activity of profit for the advancement of any object of general public utility within the meaning of section 2(16) of the Act. That apart, even in the light of the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. 1977 109 ITR 527, since the business of publishing of the Janata weekly itself is held in trust for charitable purpose, the business of publishing was not undertaken by the assessee in order to advance any object of general public utility. Therefore, also, the assessee would be entitled to exemption of its income from taxation and we hold accordingly. The assessee s appeal in this regard is, accordingly, allowed. In the light of this decision, the income world not be taxable at all and it would be unnecessary to decide the other matters regarding the rate of tax or assessability of the life subscription. We, accordingly, allow the assessee s appeal and hold that income of the assessee is not taxable. The department s appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
-
1985 (11) TMI 76 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Capital Gains, Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... and this has increased the market value of the land. The valuation as on the date of the formation of the partnership was Rs. 2,17,000 less 10 per cent and, in our opinion, it is eminently reasonable and, on that basis, the capital gains may be computed. We uphold the orders of the authorities below in this regard. 15. The next ground pertains to the capital gains being taxed as short-term capital gains. In this regard, the authorities below were clearly in error because they have ignored section 2(42A)(b) and it was incumbent upon the ITO to take into account the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner because the assessees got the land under a gift deed within the meaning of section 49(1)(ii) of the Act. The land was held by the donor and her predecessors for nearly 30 years or more and, therefore, the capital gains would be long-term capital gains and not short-term capital gains. We reverse the finding in this regard. 16. The appeals are partly allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 75 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-
... ...
... ... ..... sum was incurred by the assessee, the assessee shall not be entitled to any deduction in respect of such sum in computing the income of the previous year in which it is actually paid. We have, therefore, to see whether the above amount of Rs. 1,96,994 was or was not allowed to the assessee in any of the earlier years. The ld. counsel for the assessee was unable to show us this facts. In our opinion, in the interest of justice the only course open to us is to direct the ITO to go into the matter. He has first to verify whether there was any such liability of Rs. 1,96,994 towards the sales tax due by the assessee. He has then to find out whether such liability had been allowed in any of the earlier years. If it was not allowed, then he has to allow it as a deduction in the assessment years under appeal under s. 43B of the Act. 18. The other contentions raised in the appeal were not pressed before us and are, therefore, rejected. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 74 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Remission Or Cessation Of Trading Liability, Discontinued Business, Succession To Business, Business Income
-
1985 (11) TMI 73 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... that notice means knowledge which could have been obtained if reasonable enquiries had been made. In fact, seeing the copy of the notice issued to the assessee s counsel by specific mention of s. 23(5) of the Act, issued after the hearing was over was only with an intention to impart knowledge to the assessee regarding enhancement though in fact as per the order there is no enhancement by the Tribunal since the matter involves process of valuation. The notice was given to remove the step of opportunity to be given in case value turns out to be higher. 4.2 On the technical objection regarding notice not having been issued to the assessee but to the assessee s counsel we may only state that notice given to the agent of the assessee is the same thing as notice to the assessee and in this case as already stated the ld. counsel was fair enough to accept the sufficiency of time given for the purpose of representation. 5. In the result, the application of the assessee is dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 72 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... . Lakhani was relevant because in that case the Court had taken into account the fact that there was no necessity to sell the ornaments which was also case here. 5. The crucial point in this case is that the sale voucher has been doubted by the Department but if that was the case, the person who purchased the ornaments and issued the voucher, should have been examined by the ITO. this has not been done. Secondly the explanation of the assessee regarding his failure to produce the purchase vouchers is quite reasonable. He could not be expected to produce them after a lapse of 60 years. It is not necessary to produce evidence about dire need to sell the ornaments. A person may sell if he so chooses considering the circumstances or advantage to be gained such as starting as business for sons. Therefore, on consideration of the facts and circumstances we hold that there is no justification for adding the amount of Rs. 27,612 as income from other soures. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 71 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... herefore, the fact that S.P. was not carrying on business in India or the assessee was not an employee of GSFC/GNFC would not be of any consequence in claiming exemption under section 10(6)(viia). It is an undisputed fact that the assessee having specialised knowledge and experience had actually used the same in constructional or manufacturing operation of GNFC which carries on business in India. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in accepting the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the salary including perquisites received by him would be exempt from tax under section 10(6)(viia). 15.5 As regards the taxability of living allowances received by the assessee, the same is fully covered by the aforesaid decision in the case of S.G. Pgnatale in favour of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT
Prosecution (Customs) - Sentence ... ... ... ... ..... earned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shows he has no previous conviction, he is not a habitual smuggler. The learned Magistrate has not taken these facts into consideration in imposing on him a sentence of imprisonment of only six months. He was, however, not apprised of the facts which have been stated before us. The consequence of punishing a man for an offence committed by him cannot indirectly result in such person s almost certain permanent exile from the country in which he has made his home or bring about his permanent separation from his wife and child. In the above special and exceptional facts of this case, while maintaining the conviction and the sentence of fine imposed upon the appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. It is stated in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal that the fine of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid. If it so, the appellant shall be released forthwith. 2.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1985 (11) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Writ Jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... jurisdiction in such a situation. 2. Admittedly, the assessing authority has still to decide the above point raised by the petitioner and in case of an adverse decision, the petitioner has further remedy of appeals and thereafter the remedy of approaching this Court by a reference and then a further appeal to the Supreme Court as provided in the Act by extensive amendment of Section 35 of the Act by Finance Act No. 2 of 1980 which was brought into force from llth October, 1982. In view of the fact that all these remedies are available to the petitioner, it would not be appropriate for us to examine this question at this stage in our writ jurisdiction See Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa - A.I.R. 1983 (S.C.) 603). For this reason alone, without going into the merits of the question raised in the petition, we dismiss this petition. 3. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioners.
|
