|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1192 Records
-
2000 (12) TMI 920
... ...
... ... ..... not a ‘provision’ it is automatically a reserve. The fact that amount has been set apart for redeeming liabilities makes it obvious that the intention is for clearing liabilities and not acquiring an asset. Bearing in mind these aspects, it is clear that the amount in question cannot be regarded as a ‘reserve’. It has to be regarded as a ‘provision’. Clearly the amount was set apart to meet a loan liability. It may also be noticed that the amount set apart is less than the respondent’s liabilities. It cannot be regarded as an asset. The decision in Vazir Sultan’s case (supra) was not correctly appreciated by the High Court. In this view, the questions deserve to be answered in the negative. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal and answer the questions in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, upholding the order of the assessing authority. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 919
... ...
... ... ..... n the silver utensils for the said purpose. If the silver utensils were required for special occasions then the assessee would have replaced the silver utensils after the sale of old utensils. That has not been done. The silver utensils were disclosed under the Amnesty Scheme and soon after sold. The articles of necessity have abruptly become surplus. The facts and circumstances of this case are against the proposition that the silver utensils were the personal effects of the minor (as on 31-3-1988 the assessee was a minor). The claim of the assessee, in our considered view, has rightly been rejected by the revenue authorities. The assessee has sought to extend the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme by making the claim that the silver utensils disclosed under the said scheme were the personal effects so as to escape the levy of capital gains tax, which is not well-founded. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 910
... ...
... ... ..... he immediately preceding year. 14.3 On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the orders of revenue authorities on the point at issue. 14.4 We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that this issue was never raised before CIT(A) that there some confusion whether the matter of deduction under section 80-IA relates to Chemical Division or Formulation Division. From the orders of revenue authorities, there appears to be no such confusion. In fact, on the point at issue, the CIT(A) has followed his order for the immediately preceding year. It has not been pointed out to us that CIT(A)’s order for assessment year 1995-96 was not accepted by the assessee and an appeal is pending in the Tribunal. We, therefore, hold that no interference is called for in the order of CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee, being devoid of merit, fails on this issue as well. 15. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 909
... ...
... ... ..... ld appear from a statement made by learned counsel for the Revenue before the tribunal that in respect of these question an application under Section 256 (2) had been moved but counsel for the Revenue cannot tell us what happened thereafter. And the assessee has filed an affidavit to state that it has no information in this behalf. Having regard to the fact that, under these circumstances, the earlier decisions of the Tribunal on the same question remain unchallenged, these appeals and the special Leave Petitions are dismissed with costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 898
... ...
... ... ..... ion was capital asset on the date of transfer. On being moved, aforesaid four questions have been referred. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. However, we have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. 3. We find that the Tribunal has considered factual aspects after analysing in detail the provisions contained in the Municipal Act and the Faridabad Complex Act. It has found as a matter of fact that in all essential matters, such as its composition, constitution, powers, functions, duties, etc., the Faridabad Administration Complex is akin to a municipality. According to us, the Tribunal has analysed the factual position keeping in view the correct position in law. Therefore, our answer to the first three questions is in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4. In view of the aforesaid answer to the first three questions, question No. 4 referred by the Tribunal is of academic interest. The reference applications stand disposed of
-
2000 (12) TMI 896
... ...
... ... ..... tood, to the company. A sale involves the idea of consideration and when the firm's assets became the property of the company by virtue of s. 575 of the Companies Act, it is difficult to visualise the same as a sale. The transaction clearly does not fall under the expressions such as discard, demolishing and destruction. Therefore, the assets held by the firm till 7th Nov., 1995, will be entitled to depreciation. 20. The decision of the Supreme Court in ALA Firm (supra) cited by Mr. Kedia is not applicable to the facts of the case before us because in that case the principle laid down was that on dissolution the firm's assets have to be valued only at market value. 21. For these reasons, we hold that the assessee-firm is (i) not liable to any capital gains tax either under s. 45(1) or s. 45(4) and (ii) is eligible for depreciation on the assets held till 7th Nov., 1995, as the conditions laid down in s. 43(6)(c)(i)(B) have not been violated. 22. The appal is allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 889
... ...
... ... ..... body corporate having separate autonomous status. Its operational area is defined, its office bearers are elected and are free to take their own decision. The committee runs a market, providing civic amenities in the market and performs judicial, legislative and executive as well as fiscal functions. It can raise funds, control and manage funds. Therefore, the ratio laid down in R. C. Jain’s case 1981 58 FJR 284 ; AIR 1981 SC 951 as chiselled and honed by other decisions referred to above squarely applies to the facts of the case. As the indicated criteria are fulfilled, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee is a local authority. The mere absence of a provision on the lines of the Maharashtra and Gujarat Acts would not be the decisive criteria in view of the analysis made supra. That being the position, the Tribunal’s conclusions are irreversible. The question referred is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2000 (12) TMI 875
... ...
... ... ..... thorities the tea estates have to keep substantial amounts with them for making such advances, settling dues, etc., out of periodical collection. We have further noticed that the assessee filed a chart before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the respect of Rungliting and Horhalla Tea Estates that after making advances or settling accounts of ceased/retired workers the appellant had no fund in the provident fund accounts and the appellant had to make advances or settle the account out of his own personal fund. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that as there was no misutilisation of the provident fund collection, the disallowance under section 43B of Rs. 5,93,770 and addition of the said amount of Rs. 5,93,770 under section 36(1)(va) are not tenable in law. We, therefore, find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which is hereby sustained. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 873
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... s passing through a financial crisis as result of which it could not attend before the Assessing Officer and even before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice it is considered fair and reasonable to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and after considering the evidence which is being furnished before us in the form of a paper book because justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the Rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and after giving due and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2000 (12) TMI 762
Deductions - Exporters ... ... ... ... ..... r name called received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of Government of India as per section 28(iiib). It is thus evident that by virtue of proviso to sub-section (3) of section 80HHC, 90 per cent of the premium paid by the Government on surrender of exim-scrips granted to the assessee is to be included in computation of profits derived from exports. It may be pertinent to mention that 90 per cent of the profits on account of exim-scrips and amount received through Engineering Export Promotion Council should first be excluded from the export profits and then by virtue of the proviso the same amount is added as profits. The result is that the assessee gets a deduction on entire export profits including cash assistance received by them by whatever name called. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 3,11,783 under section 80HHC is thus unnarrated. The same is accordingly deleted. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 250
... ...
... ... ..... he subsidy received by the assessee. 13. Before concluding the matter, we would like to refer to the Board Circular No. 541, dt. 25th July, 1989, as corrected by Circular No. 544, dt. 15th Sept., 1989, reported at p. 148-9 of Vol. 1, 5th Edn. of Chaturvedi and Pithisaria rsquo s Commentary. Para 3 of this circular also says that Board has decided that subsidy received by the producer of the regional films should not be charged to tax as revenue receipt. Para 5 again says that concession provided in para 3 of the circular would continue for asst. yr. 1990-91 and subsequent years despite the proviso to r. 9A. This circular is binding on the AO. Since, in the present case, the subsidy relates to regional feature film, the AO was not justified in reducing the cost of the production. 14. In view of the above discussion, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and the addition of Rs. 11,88,000 sustained by the CIT(A) is hereby deleted. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 247
Appellate Tribunal, Powers of ... ... ... ... ..... pportunity of being heard to the assessee, determine the factual aspect whether the F.D.Rs. were purchased by way of commercial expediency or not. If the assessee is found to have purchased the FDRs with a view to maintain the overdraft facility with the Bank, then such interest income would be considered by him as business income allowable for deduction under sections 80-HHA and 80-I. As far as the income from dividend is concerned, the order of CIT(A) is upheld. Following the aforesaid observations of this Tribunal, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, determine the factual aspect whether the F.D.Rs. were purchased by way of commercial expediency or not and further adjudicate upon the issue in accordance with our observations reproduced supra. 7. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes.
-
2000 (12) TMI 244
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... el Sri Balasubramanian submitted that by adjusting the unabsorbed depreciation before unabsorbed investment allowance, the assessee would be losing the benefit of unabsorbed investment allowance as the same could be carried forward for a limited period only. In this connection we may refer to the observation of the Madras High Court in the case of Coromandel Steels Ltd. appearing on page 862 The matter has to be considered only in the light of the statutory provisions and not in the light of the reasoning based on equitable considerations, on the accident of the relative age of the unabsorbed depreciation, loss or development rebate in any particular case. 16. In the light of the judicial decisions discussed above, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), upholding the priority given to unabsorbed depreciation over unabsorbed investment allowance for adjustment against the profits and gains of the current year. 17. This appeal by the assessee is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 242
Appellate Tribunal, Power Of ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee forthwith on receipt of this order. (2) The assessee, to deposit Rs. 1 lakh per month with Revenue starting from the month of February, 2001 during the pendency of the appeal. The Revenue shall not take unnecessary adjournment. (3) Further recovery of all remaining outstanding demand amounts and further proceedings are stayed in the matter till the disposal of the appeal. (4) Registry, to post this appeal on out of turn basis for hearing before the Bench on 12-3-2001. Parties shall file their paper books etc. before one month before the date of hearing and shall not ask for unnecessary adjournment in the matter. (5) No notice of hearing shall be issued separately. 38. Nothing stated herein shall prejudice the rights of the parties on merits of the case. We further direct the Registry to supply the copy of this order to both the parties and other authorities forthwith. With these observations and directions, the Stay Petitions are allowed to the extent stated above.
-
2000 (12) TMI 239
Capital Gains, Assessee Partner In A Firm ... ... ... ... ..... or to both. The deduction under section 48(2) is allowable only once, i.e., while computing the capital gains arising from the transfer of a long- term capital asset. In the present case the long- term capital gains arose when the firm transferred its assets. The capital gain was computed in the assessment of the firm. In the computation all deductions including the deduction under section 48(2) were allowed. Section 48(2) does not provide for a deduction once again, from the share of capital gains allocated to a partner, even though by virtue of section 67(2), that share income retains the character of capital gains. 10. In (he circumstances discussed above, we uphold the finding of the CIT(A) that the assessee being a partner in the firm, is not entitled to the deduction under section 48(2) of the Income-tax Act on the share of capital gains, allocated to him on the basis of the computation in the assessment of the firm. This appeal by the assessee is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 237
Delay In Filing TDS Returns ... ... ... ... ..... essee on 29th Aug., 1990, and has also furnished a copy of the same. Considering the legal position enunciated in (1994) 47 TTJ (Bom) 395 (1993) 46 ITD 185 (Bom) (SMC) as also (1999) 64 TTJ (Mumbai) 451 (1999) 68 ITD 390 (Mumbai) the assessee having filed the TDS return on 29th Aug., 1990 the penalty under s. 272A(2)(c) is found to be justifiably not leviable. In that view of the matter the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in restricting the quantum of penalty to TDS liability is found to be not tenable, nor the levy of penalty itself. We, therefore, delete the penalty. In the circumstances the question of restoring the order of AO in respect of the quantum of penalty as against the impugned order of CIT(A) in reducing the same also does not arise and the contention of the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue also fads 6. In the result, the assessee s appeal being ITA No. 642/(Jp)/94 is allowed, whereas the Revenue s appeal being ITA No. 694(Jp)/94 is dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 236
Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... cale industrial undertaking and the machinery and equipment installed therein can be regarded as used for the purpose of business of manufacturing or production of articles or things. From the said decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, it is evident that both the basis given by the AO in support of disallowance of assessee s claim for deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I do not survive now and the resultant position that clearly emerges is that the assessee s unit/nursing home is regarded as an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacturing or processing of articles or things thus making it is entitled for deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I. As such, considering all the facts of the case and following the aforesaid decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case for asst. yr. 1986-87, we uphold the impugned order of learned CIT(A) allowing deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I in the present case. 9. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 234
Additional Ground ... ... ... ... ..... mitted by us, the only ground that now remains is the original ground disputing the allowing of depreciation after applying 10 per cent n.p. rate. So far as the allowing of depreciation is concerned, the matter is covered in favour of assessee by the above referred judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jain Construction Co. wherein it has been held that after estimating the g.p. or n.p. the deduction for depreciation has further to be allowed separately from the profit so estimated. Accordingly, in view of the above legal position we find no substance/merit in the Revenue s appeal as the learned CIT(A) s order on that count cannot be treated to be faulty or laconic. We, therefore, make no interference therein. 17. In the result, the Revenue s appeal No. 1864/Jp/1994 for asst. yr. 1991-92 is dismissed, the assessee s appeal No. 420/Jp/1996 for asst. yr. 1993-94 as also Revenue s appeal No. 508/Jp/1996 for asst. yr. 1993-94 are allowed as indicated above.
-
2000 (12) TMI 233
Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... ideration along with the cost of structure of building for the purposes of determining annual value of the building for the purposes of income from house property. It has also been the plea of the assessee that she being an MLA and also a Minister of State and so being busy in public service at Jaipur, could not devote proper attention to her accounts. In that view of the matter, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the legal position as propounded in the above referred citations, we are of the view that it is a matter of bona fide mistake and not a conscious concealment constituting deliberate defiance of the provisions of law, nor, in view of the pettiness of the amount and other circumstances it can reasonably to treated as establishing assessee s contumacious or guilty conduct. As such, we find the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) to be not justifiable. We, therefore, delete the penalty. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 232
Prior Period Adjustments ... ... ... ... ..... Rs. 18,750 and unpaid incentive bonus written off of Rs. 491. 25. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is observed that the learned CIT(A) has not decided these issues mainly because of the absence of any discussion in the AO s order in respect of the same. He, therefore, has advised the assessee to move application under s. 154 and also directed the AO to consider the same. In our opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue mainly because these issues, prima facie, were not arising from the order of the AO assailed before the learned CIT(A). Moreover, even if the assessee s application under s. 154 is rejected by the AO, still the assessee will have the right to prefer an appeal against the said order. 26. Ground Nos. 10 and 11 are general in nature and call for no specific decision on our part. 27. In the result this appeal preferred by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above.
........
|
