|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 69 Records
-
2000 (6) TMI 806 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... of the fact that the assessee-bank has to comply with the various norms and guidelines prescribed by the RBI, in respect of rural advances and matters relating to credit policy, accounting standards and reporting system, we are unable to find any merit in the reasoning adopted by the learned Commissioner in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim under Section 36(1)(viia) in toto and that too in the light of the clear finding given by the learned first appellate authority on the very same issue in crystal clear terms to the effect that the assessee is entitled to deduction at 5 per cent of the total income and also at 2 per cent of the advances made by the rural branches "in accordance with the provisions of this section" Emphasis supplied . 22. In the light of the foregoing discussion we hold that the impugned order is liable to be cancelled on ground of jurisdiction as well as on merits. We order accordingly. 23. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 801 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 61. While rejecting assessee's claim for specific performance, Court held that the assessee was entitled to compensation for breach of contract, and accordingly at p 36 of 195 ITR, the Court held that the right acquired by the assessee was a mere right to sue. 11. In the case before us, as in the case of Vijay Flexible Containers (supra) and unlike Dehgamwalla's case (supra), there was a claim for specific performance but by way of consent terms dt. 19th Aug., 1994, assessee relinquished the claim for specific performance. As in Dehgamwalla's case, there is no such Court order decreeing that assessee has no claim for specific performance. Hence, Dehgamwalla's case cannot apply to the facts of the present case but the case of Vijay Flexible Containers will squarely apply to the case before us. 12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother. 13. The appeal of the assessee, therefore, stands dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 800 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... hip. In our opinion, much cannot be made of the fact that at the point of time the contribution was made by the transferor he was still a member of the society. The stark fact is that the contribution is made on the eve of cessation to be a member. Hon’ble Supreme Court have clearly laid down in Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd.’s case (supra) that the essence of mutuality lies in the return of what one has contributed to a common fund. In the present case there is no return to the contributor. The return to other members is for no particular contribution made by them but for reason only that they continue to be members. On these facts, we are of the view that the principle of mutuality falls flat in the ground. 17. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we hold that the authorities below rightly treated the transfer fee of ₹ 3,00,000 received by the society as its revenue receipt chargeable to income-tax. We therefore dismiss this appeal.
-
2000 (6) TMI 798 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... age subsists. This is also not a case of remarriage of a surviving spouse. Thus, we are of the firm view that Explanation (a ) to section 64(1A) is applicable to the instant case in which event the income of the minor children has to be included in the hands of the assessee herein. Having regard to the language of Explanation ( a) i.e., "in the income of that parent, whose total income is greater", the income of the assessee is greater inasmuch as the other parent, i.e., late Subramaniam cannot be said to have earned any income during this year and thus the income, however negligible, earned by the other parent would automatically be greater as compared to the nil income of the late Subramaniam. Since the income of the assessee is greater, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to club the income of the minor children in the hands of the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 797 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... personal gift for his personal qualities as a token of personal esteem and veneration, the receipt cannot be subjected to tax. Accordingly, we hold that the amount of ₹ 1,00,000 each received by the assessee in the two assessment years under consideration is not taxable as compensation as contemplated under s. 17(3) as profit in lieu of salary and hold that this is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. 9. The assessee has taken one more ground in the asst. yr. 1991-92 with regard to levy of interest under s. 220(2) amounting to ₹ 2,715 which the learned CIT(A) had not decided. No such interest has been levied in the assessment order and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) rightly did not entertain this ground. The learned counsel for the assessee did not press this ground at the time of hearing. Accordingly, it is dismissed as not pressed. 10. In the result, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1990-91 is allowed and that for the asst. yr. 1991-92 is partly allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 795 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... its income the same income cannot be charged again in the hands of the members individually and vice versa. The trust income cannot be taxed in the hands of the settlor and also in the hands of the trustee as well as the beneficiary. These principles are, of course, subject to any special provision enabling double taxation in the statute." (p. 55) 14. In the present case, upon the completion of the assessment of the assessee-employee, nothing prevents the department from passing reassessment order under section 147 after including above two items in disputes and recover tax, penalty and interest from them such absurd reasons resulting in double taxation must be avoided. Accordingly, the third argument raised by Shri Vyas also requires to be accepted. 15. In view of the above, it is held that the order passed by the ITO under sections 201(1) and (1A) is hereby quashed as being bad in law and without jurisdiction. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 775 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... cases. A boiler and a dryer may serve two different functions but the principle of conservation of energy in both the ldquo fluidized bed type heat boiler rdquo and ldquo fluidized bed type heat dryer rdquo is the same. Depreciation at the rate of 100 is provided on these types of plants on the consideration that they consume much less energy than the normal ones. In our view, a fluidized bed type heat boiler as well as a dryer of the same both working on the same principle, have got to be categorised as energy saving devices and that is why depreciation at the rate of 100 percent should be applied to a ldquo plant rdquo under our present consideration also. Furthermore, this issue stands clearly covered by the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Warren Tea Limited (supra) in favour of the assessee. Following the said line, therefore, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 774 - ITAT MUMBAI
Audit of accounts of certain persons carrying on business or profession ... ... ... ... ..... units was a speculative transaction. No delivery has taken place. The account has been settled only by crediting the difference which is duly reflected in the profit and loss account. No other activity has been carried out by the assessee. In view of the foregoing discussion, and also respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal cited supra, we hold that no turnover was effected at all by the assessee and hence was not liable to get the accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act and hence the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) is deleted. 13. In the case of Growmore Exports Ltd. IT Appeal No. 5893 (Mum.) of 1995 and Aatur Holdings (P.) Ltd. IT Appeal No. 5896 (Mum.) of 1995 , the CIT(A) has followed the order in the case of Harsh Estates (P.) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, following our order in the case of Harsh Estates (P.) Ltd. (supra) penalties levied in the other two cases are also cancelled. 14. In the result, all the appeals by the respective assessees are allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 696 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Business disallowanc ... ... ... ... ..... ity whatsoever in the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. It is relevant to point out that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer considered that the assessee allegedly made the purchase from M/s. Munna Lal Sat Parkash of Shahpur, Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) i.e., the same party, which was also involved in the case of M/s. Pawan Kumar Sham Lal, Bhikhi (supra). Considering the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition in the hands of the assessee in view of the findings given by this Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 11-8-2000 in the case of ITO v. M/s. Pawan Kumar Sham Lal, Bhikhi (supra). So respectfully following the aforesaid order we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 158 - ITAT PUNE
Loans, Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... e is that he has repaid the loans and not deposits and, therefore, question of invoking provisions of section 271E for contravention of section 269T could not have arisen. For want of specific charge in this case, in our opinion, levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer is totally unjustified. The Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 1996 56 TTJ (Ahd.) 580 has held that where the Department itself was not sure whether return of money was deposit or loan, penalty under section 271D was not attracted. (This was one of the reasons for deleting the penalty). 9. To conclude, there is a marked distinction between loan and deposit as brought out supra, the assessee repaid loans and not deposits and, therefore, question of invoking provisions of section 271E for contravention of section 269T does not arise. Accordingly, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) and decline to interfere. 10. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 157 - ITAT PUNE
Penalty, Interpretation Of Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... lty can be levied with reference to the sum of Rs. 8,000 raised on 27-12-1991. The copy of the account of Shri Ganesh shows that as on 27-12-1991, the balance in the account of Shri Ganesh was to the extent of Rs. 8,500 only. After raising the loan of Rs. 8,000, the aggregate amount came to Rs. 16,500 which was below the prescribed limit under section 269SS. Accordingly, no penalty could be levied with reference to the sum of Rs. 8,000 also. 11. In view of the above, it is held that there was reasonable cause for raising the loan in cash and on this account, the penalty could not be levied under section 271D read with section 273B except for the amount of Rs. 8,000. For the reasons mentioned above, no penalty could also be imposed with reference to the sum of Rs. 8,000. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and the penalty of Rs. 82,000 sustained by him is hereby deleted. 12 In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 156 - ITAT PUNE
Foreign Currency, Words And Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... essee s liability as expressed in Indian currency for payment of the whole or a part of the cost of the asset or of the loan-in foreign currency, the original actual cost, to the assessee, of the machinery or plant or other capital asset, is required to be increased or, as the case may be, reduced, correspondingly ..... 11. The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd (No. 2) 1998 229 ITR 137 has also taken the same view after taking into consideration the aforesaid circular. 12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that provisions of section 43A are applicable where the instalment remains outstanding at the end of the year and there is increased liability on account of fluctuation in exchange rate. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in holding that assessee was not entitled to depreciation in respect of increased liability. Consequently, the order of CIT(Appeals) is, therefore, quashed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 150 - ITAT RAJKOT
Income Escaping Assessment, Actual Cost ... ... ... ... ..... ove Supreme Court decision, we find sufficient force in the arguments of learned Counsel that interest under section 215 has to be paid up to the date of the regular assessment only. This ground is, therefore, allowed. 40. During the course of hearing, the assessee also filed an additional ground vide its letter dated 23-2-2000. It is submitted by the assessee that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 15,81,139 confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) should be reduced from Rs. 15,81,139 to Rs. 9,79,945, this ground has been taken up by the assessee without prejudice to the claim made in ground No. 3 discussed above. 41. After going through the facts of this case, we find that this ground was neither taken up before the Assessing Officer nor before the learned CIT (Appeals). Therefore, the question of admitting this appeal at this stage does not arise. This ground of appeal is, therefore, not admitted. 42. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 148 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Investment Deposit Account ... ... ... ... ..... ur of the assessee, in preference to the Gauhati High Court decision in Dinjoya Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. s case, adopting the principle that when there are more than one view, the view which is favourable to the assessee should get preference, as propounded by the Apex Court in the well known case of Vegetable Products. 11. In addition to the fact that on merits also the point at issue is in favour of the assessee as discussed by us in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, we are of the opinion that, following the well propounded legal maxim by the Apex Court in the case of Vegetable Products, we are bound to prefer the decision of the Kerala High Court than that of the Gauhati High Court. Thus we set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to include the income from interest and dividend in a sum of Rs. 23,67,452 in the book profits while computing the deduction under section 32AB of the income-tax Act. 12. Thus the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 145 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Balancing Charge ... ... ... ... ..... ld be treated as profit attributable to the business of manufacture of rubber products, and accordingly such profit being not less than 5196 of the total income the assessee qualifies as an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act. That is for the assessment year 1976-77. We accordingly reverse the order of the revenue authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to levy tax at the concessional rate as applicable to industrial company for the assessment year 1976-77. As regards the assessment year 1977-78, we have already held that income by way of lease rent is not profit attributable to an industrial activity. It is not made clear before us, as to whether there is any profit under section 41(2) included in the total income for the assessment year 1977-78. The Assessing Officer will apply the correct rate of tax in the light of our decision on the profit under section 41(2). 9. The appeals by the assessee are thus treated as partly allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 143 - ITAT JODHPUR
Deemed Gift ... ... ... ... ..... vestment has also to be deducted from the book profits. It has been contended by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee before us that the G.T.O. while working out the value of goodwill has not taken into consideration the salary as also the interest referred to above and that if the same are considered, then the value of the goodwill comes to almost nil or negligible. Considering the above contention of the Ld. A.R. as also the fact that the partnerships were at Will and that there is no mention of any retiring partner s entitlement to any share in goodwill in the partnership deed nor in the dissolution deed as submitted by the Ld. A.R. of assessee and also considering the fact-situation of the cases in hand as revealed from the materials on record, we find no fault with the impugned orders of the Ld. CGT(A) in holding there to be no gift, nor any deemed gift. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 16. In the result, all the above nine appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 142 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... uch there being no cogent and clear evidence to shatter the apparent fact-situation the same well deserves to be treated as real. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it established that the audit report dated 28-10-1993 was not prepared or not obtained by 28-10-1993. In the circumstances the assessee having got its accounts audited by 28-10-1993 and having obtained a report of the said audit by 28-10-1993 the penalty for default of getting the accounts audited within specified date under section 44AB and of obtaining the audit report within the said specified date is not found to be leviable under section 271B. In that view of the matter considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the legal position we find the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) drawn in his impugned order to be quite justified and warranting no interference. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 15. In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 139 - ITAT JAIPUR
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... d the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. The facts prove beyond doubt that assessee is not a person of means, nor he is having any source of income, except salary. Besides the circumstantial evidence in the form of availability of letter in the possession of the assessee at the time when he was apprehended by the police, the availability of cash in the books of M/s Hukmichand Ghewarchand, which was duly recorded at the time when survey under s. 132 was conducted on the very same date. The availability of cash balance indicating that no chance of building up cash to explain the acquisition and also the categorical statement of Shri Tikamchand along with the affidavit duly prove the fact that the amount in question belongs to the firm and not to the appellant. We, therefore, feel that the conclusions drawn by the CIT(A) are reasonable and hence decline to interfere on this account. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 138 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... he Department to appeal against the order of 3rd May, 1999, of the Hon ble High Court in ITA No. 5 of 1996 reported in CIT vs. D and H Secheron Electrodes (P) Ltd. (1997) 141 CTR (MP) 335 (1998) 233 ITR 473 (MP) sic-decision in ITA No. 5 is not reported in D and H Secheron, IT Ref. No. is 7 of 1996, decision is dt. 17th Oct., 1996-Ed. whereby the High Court answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of Dy. CIT(A) directing the AO to allow interest on interest. But until and unless the Hon ble apex Court reverses the order of the High Court, the decision of the High Court would hold good. In view of the above case laws decided by the various High Courts, we find no infirmity in the order of the Dy. CIT(A) allowing the interest on interest under s. 244(1A) of the IT Act. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 137 - ITAT JAIPUR
Deduction, Exporters ... ... ... ... ..... ed by the CIT, Jaipur on 22-3-1999 whereas the order under section 154 was passed on a later date but it is strange to note that the Assessing Officer has even ignored the order passed by the CIT, Jaipur. The Audit Report specifying the amount of rebate allowable at Rs. 6,00,410 was on the basis of the amount received in the country in convertible foreign exchange when the Auditor audited the accounts. The Auditor, therefore, justifiably issued the certificate only to this extent but after the order of the CIT, Jaipur controversy in regard to the total amount to be considered for purposes of rebate under section 80HHC totalled to Rs. 1,07,33,971, which was claimed as per the computation of total income while, filing the return of income. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal of the appellant in full and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit under section 80HHC to the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal stands fully allowed.
|
