|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 213 Records
-
1993 (6) TMI 139 - ITAT PUNE
Delay In Filing Return, Failure To File, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983 was held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CWT V. Prakashi Talkies (P.) Ltd. 1993 112 Taxation 500 to be certainly curative amendment and therefore, normally it could be declared as declaratory of the existing law. 29. Following the aforesaid rulings and keeping in view the avowed object of removal of hardships as clarified by the Board, it could be reasonably inferred and concluded that the proviso is retrospective in operation with effect from 1-4-1989 when the increased scale of penalty has been introduced which caused the hardship to the tax deductors. In this view of the matter, therefore, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Dy. CIT (Admn.) to recompute the penalty for the period of delay not covered by reasonable cause subject to limitation of penalty to the tax deductible or collectible at source as alternatively prayed for by the appellants. 30. In the result, the appeals are allowed as directed above.
-
1993 (6) TMI 136 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Collaboration Agreement, Foreign Company, Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India, Technical Know-how
-
1993 (6) TMI 135 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Agreement For Avoidance, Assessing Officer, Business Transactions, Chargeable To Tax, Expenditure Incurred, Foreign Exchange, Income From Other Sources, Interest Income, Rubber Estate, Set Off
-
1993 (6) TMI 132 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Assessing Officer, Certain Assets ... ... ... ... ..... scarded assets will necessarily have to be deducted from the W.D.V. But the matter does not rest there. It will be necessary, first, to display the estimated (scrap) value of the discarded machinery lying unsold at the end of the year of account in which the machinery was discarded/scrapped as Closing stock In the Balance Sheet. And in the subsequent year(s) when the discarded machinery is actually sold, the extent to which the money realised could be brought to tax will have to be determined in the light of the estimated scrap value. It is in this sense that the contention of the assessee s learned representative that the estimated scrap value must be taken as the opening stock of the subsequent year must be understood. And, as already pointed out, the point is well taken. 15. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to take the sum of Rs. 2,78,907 as opening stock of the scrap for purposes of future adjustments. 16. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 130 - ITAT JAIPUR
Reassessment, Notice ... ... ... ... ..... Jain because, if he is not aggrieved with the orders of the first appellate authorities he has got no basis to come before us. 11. Taking all these factors into account, we are of the opinion that since in the instant case valid notices for the assessment years under consideration had been issued by the Assessing Officer on 9-10-1973 but he failed to complete the assessments within the time allowed under law, the assessments got barred by time for both the years. We further hold that the assessments dated 29-3-1984 for the assessment year 1971-72 and 20-2-1985 for the assessment year 1972-73 are invalid, because they were completed on the basis of fresh notices issued under section 148 dated 31-3-1980 and 17-3-1981 i.e., at a time when the original proceedings initiated under section 148 were still pending. Hence both the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer for these two assessment years are annulled. 12. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are, therefore, allowed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 129 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Hindu Undivided Family ... ... ... ... ..... r of all the members comprised in two branches of a Hindu joint family to the exclusion of all other branches in that family. Even in such an instance, the gift or settled property should be taken to be the H. U. F. property of the two branches. Therefore, agreeing with the arguments advanced by Shri K.V. S. Bhaskara Rao this Tribunal holds that the Assessing Officer is quite correct while treating the status of the assessee as H.U.F. in each of the original assessments framed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. This Tribunal holds that the revisionary order passed by the learned Commissioner is not all correct. The original assessment passed treating the status of the assessee as H.U.F. is perfectly justified and it is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the revisionary order is bad in law. 16. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the revisionary order of the Commissioner of Income-tax is hereby cancelled.
-
1993 (6) TMI 128 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Agricultural Land, Capital Asset, Municipal Corporation ... ... ... ... ..... sequently, they would be entirely different concepts from the term panchayat , be it a village panchayat or a town panchayat. The rule of ejusdem generis, relied upon by the revenue to bring the panchayat under the category of any other name would also not apply since panchayats are a distinct genus by themselves. Panchayats cannot, therefore, be treated as municipalities under section 2(14)(iii)(a) and, hence, sale of the impugned lands could not attract capital gains tax. 14. In the case before us, it bears repetition that the acquired land was situated in Palamaner town which is governed by the Panchayats Act and does not fall within any municipality, municipal corporation or cantonment board and hence the agricultural land falls outside the purview of section 2(14) of the I. T. Act. The revenue was, therefore, not justified in levying capital gains tax. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) though for different reasons. 15. The Revenue s appeal is dismissed
-
1993 (6) TMI 127 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ts of this case, and this Tribunal holds that the admission made by the assessee was not successfully explained away by the assessee in any manner. If the assessee did not succeed in explaining away the admission, then the concealment of its income in asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 should be taken to have been admitted by the assessee, for which the assessee is liable to penalty under s. 271(1)(c). 17. The authorities cited by the assessee are neither here nor there and they are clearly distinguishable. Therefore, each of them may not be taken up and distinguished, since it only amounts to burdening the record further. Since this Tribunal upholds the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c), it is not duty bound to consider the authorities cited by the learned Departmental Representative during his arguments. 18. In the result, this Tribunal fails to see any valid ground to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. In the result, these appeals fail and they are dismissed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 126 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Trust, Powers Of CIT(A) ... ... ... ... ..... into with a profit motive. Having got the definition of business as mentioned above and applying the same to the set of facts before the Tribunal, this Tribunal has no reservation to come to a finding that these assessees carried on business as its occupation or profession. The volume of money-lending business of each of these assessees is considerable. There is frequency and continuity present in their business activities and, therefore, earning interest by the assessees in their money-lending transactions cannot but be considered as business income earned by these assessees. Further, in all earlier years prior to 1986-87, the assessees were being assessed to income-tax on interest income which was considered part of their business income. Therefore, this Tribunal feels that there is no justification to unsettle the decision rendered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam in case of each of these assessees. Therefore, these appeals fail and are dismissed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 125 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Penalty For Late Filing Of Return ... ... ... ... ..... rther as follows as per headnote at page 392 The four different defaults dealt with in section 271(1)(a) are independent of each other, and for the purpose of penalty, the finding of a return under section 139(2) of the Act, is not to be considered as the filing of a return under section 139(1). Furnishing a return in pursuance of notice issued under section 139(2) would not extinguish the default already committed under section 139(1) in not filing a return as required by that section. Thus, simply because a notice was issued under section 139(2)/148 it cannot be said that the penalty proceedings validly started under the original assessment proceedings would come to a stop without getting time-barred which forms the basis of the impugned order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). Since the very basis of the impugned order is not correct, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) is liable to be cancelled. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the penalty is cancelled.
-
1993 (6) TMI 124 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... Therefore, even as per the approved ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases cited above, it would appear that the lease income should be considered as part of business income and not as income from other sources. 18. Since we have already discussed the Supreme Court decisions on the subject, the other decisions rendered by the Tribunal and other High Courts may not be considered material, except to burden the record. Therefore, this Tribunal does not propose to deal with the other citations, on which the learned counsel relied upon to support his contentions. Suffice it to say that the orders of the lower authorities, are beset with wrong appreciation of facts and law on the subject. They are therefore, set aside, and this Tribunal directs the Assessing Officer to treat the lease amounts derived in each of the accounting years relevant to the four assessment years under consideration, as part of business income of the assessee. 19. In the result, appeals are allowed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 122 - ITAT GAUHATI
Advance Tax, Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Interest Payable By Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... e-tax. There are no materials on record to show that the assessee was guilty of deliberately postponing the payment of advance-tax in which case alone the provisions of section 216 come into play. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1980 122 ITR 251 and the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. 1980 123 ITR 712 have held that the condition precedent for the application of section 216 of the Act is that the furnishing of the underestimate should be deliberate. There is no such finding in the present case to indicate that the assessee was guilty of having deliberately furnished an under-estimate with a view to postponing the payment of advance-tax in the first two instalments. We are, therefore, satisfied that even a demand in the present case would not be justified. 9. For the above reasons we uphold the order of the CIT (A) cancelling the Interest under section 216 of the Act and dismiss the appeal.
-
1993 (6) TMI 121 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... material on record and for that matter there is no allegation to the effect that purchases of raw tobacco had also been made vis-a-vis use of such unaccounted purchases on account of other ingredients (x) That in the assessment year under appeal, viz., 1985-86 the assessee s sales were the highest at Rs. 8.57 crores as compared to the four preceding assessment years and the G.P. rate at 17.98 was also higher as compared to the immediately two preceding assessment years and (xi) There is no challenge before us vis-a-vis the findings recorded by the CIT(A) after perusing the material on record in respect of the type of tobacco used by the assessee in its manufacturing process as also the moisture content thereof. 24. In the final analysis, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) since the view taken by him to delete the addition is wholly justified on the facts and circumstances of the case as brought out during the course of the hearing. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-E
Business Deduction, Allowability of, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ney that was lost was of the Bank because once the money was deposited with the Bank, that money becomes the Bank s money and if the Bank has lost that money, it becomes the loss of the Bank. It is, therefore, difficult to follow the argument that the assessee had not incurred the loss--the loss was that of the Bank. It is now an established fact in this case that all the fees collected by the assessee was deposited in the Bank and the money lost by this fraudulent withdrawal was out of such fees. Therefore, it had intimate connection with the business and profession carried on by the assessee. For the above reasons, I am unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member. Agreeing with the view expressed by the learned Judicial Member, which is more justified and reasonable, I hold that the assessee is entitled to the deduction. 11. Now the matter will go before the regular Bench for disposal of the appeal in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
1993 (6) TMI 119 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... ot done the said order cannot be approved in law. I would also go to the extent of saying that the order passed under section 143(1)(a) in fact tantamounts to an order passed under section 143(3) which otherwise has no legs to stand on since no formal notice was issued to the assessee and no opportunity was allowed to him to explain his case vis-a-vis the exemption claimed. Under normal circumstances. I would have proceeded to restore the matter back to the file of the DC (Appeals) directing him to treat the appeal as admitted within the meaning of section 246 and dispose the same of on merits, but since the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 143(1)(a) is otherwise not supportable under the provisions of law it would be more appropriate to set aside the same and restore the matter to the stage of the return having been filed and awaiting an order from the Income-tax Officer. It is ordered so. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, for statistical purposes.
-
1993 (6) TMI 118 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... 25 considering the total life of the caravans as 4 years. The first appellate authority, considering the nature of the construction of temporary sheds held the claim of the assessee as justified. Deduction was accordingly directed to be allowed. The Revenue accepted the decision of the first appellate authority for asst. yr. 1984-85. For the assessment year under appeal, the CIT(A) has followed her order for the asst. yr. 1984-85 and Revenue has not given any reasons as to why a different view should be taken for the year under appeal. In respect of the temporary structures depreciation is permissible 100 . Assessee has spread the deduction in 4 years considering the total life of the structures. The system having been accepted by the Revenue in the immediately preceding year, we see no justification for taking a different view for the year under appeal. Ground raised by the Revenue is without any merit and is accordingly rejected. 11. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... ected the raising of loan of Rs. 2 lakhs. Therefore, addition to that extent was not justified. Now as per our order addition to the extent of Rs. 50,000 can be sustained. 8. The next question relates to disallowance of interest. The assessee had claimed payment of interest Rs. 11,325 on these four loans (though it is mentioned as Rs. 12,500 in the order of the CIT). Since we have accepted the explanation of the assessee with regard to three loans, of Rs. 50,000 each, therefore, the interest payment to this extent is justified. However, interest payment regarding fourth party is not justified. So the proportionate addition out of interest claimed Rs. 11,325 can be sustained. The disallowance of interest of Rs. 8,493 is unjustified. Therefore, the ITO is directed to allow the same. 9. The issue regarding charging of interest under s. 217 is consequential. The ITO is directed to revise the interest on the basis of above findings. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... to allow deduction of the gratuity at Rs. 3,05,234, on which, the counsel conceded that, the correct figure of allowable deduction is far less, i.e., Rs. 2,11,711, which was the amount deposited with LIC under the Group Gratuity Scheme. The Departmental Representative only relied on the orders. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the amount that has been paid into the Group Gratuity Scheme with LIC and allow deduction to the extent of the actual amount of deposit. 28. The Revenue had again raised the issue of allowing of depreciation at hundred per cent of the cost of the bottles and shells, treating them as plants for the detailed discussion in Para 5 above, which would equally hold good, we do not see any merit in this ground. 29. In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1982-83, is allowed, and for the asst. yr. 1985-86 is allowed in part and the Departmental appeals are allowed in part. In view of earlier decisions of Tribunal referred, I agree.
-
1993 (6) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-B
Additional Tax, Assessing Officer, Commercial Profit, Distributable Income, Undistributed Profits
-
1993 (6) TMI 114 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... eard rival submissions. We see that this issue stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 730/Coch/87 for the asst. yr. 1984-85, dt. 13th Aug., 1992 in favour of the assessee. The order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1984-85 was based on the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 817/Coch/86 for the asst. yr. 1983-84 dt. 6th Feb., 1992, in the assessee s own case, wherein we have held as under the salary and remuneration have been paid in pursuance of resolution passed by the Board of Trustees with the full acquiescence of all the beneficiaries and the turnover of the business and the profitability was fairly substantial. The Tribunal also found that the claim made under the head salary was very low . In this case also there is no fresh material was furnished so as to take a difference view. Hence, following our earlier order, we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) on this point. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue fail and they are hereby dismissed.
........
|
