|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 122 Records
-
1986 (9) TMI 105 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... e the taxing authority in the High Court has held that the amount was taxable, the Supreme Court reversed that finding and held that the lease by which the Cinema house was demised did not contain any condition or stipulation from which it could be inferred that the aforesaid amount had been paid by way of advance rent. Therefore, the same was not taxable. 11. When the assessee has treated the amount as liability in his hands because the amount has to be adjusted against the rent payable in future, it cannot be treated as payment of advance rent so as to taxable as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee. In any event, the matter is in our opinion directly covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. and Mrs. H.N. Kelawala and respectfully following the same we hold that the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs received in this year by the assessee was not taxable in the hands of the assessee as revenue income. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the addition is deleted.
-
1986 (9) TMI 104 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Closing Stock, Purchase Price, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... is income under section 41(1) is not justified as it is not proved that the assessee had got in his present capacity the benefit of deduction on account of purchase of the buffaloes that were sold during the year. We find there is no change in the income or tax as a result of the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue and in that sense the department is not aggrieved by the Commissioner (Appeals) s order. Even on merits the department has no case for the taxation of amount as profit under section 41(1). The assessee has himself offered the amount as a trading receipt and its taxability has not been challenged before us by the assessee either in a cross-objection or in a cross-appeal. We would, therefore, hold that this ground of appeal by the revenue is misconceived. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal by the department will be treated as allowed in part. The addition of Rs. 1,98,597 as capital expenditure made by the ITO is restored.
-
1986 (9) TMI 102 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Agricultural Land, Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Jurisdiction For Reassessment, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1986 (9) TMI 101 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ase cited by the learned counsel which is relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) also are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 14. Since there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the expenditure incurred was wholly and exclusively for the benefit of the business of the bank or any way connected with the business of the bank, we cannot agree with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the entrance fees and subscription of clubs are not perquisite within the meaning of section 17(2)(iii) or (iv). We, therefore hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in giving relief and holding that the entrance fees and subscription of Rs. 6,200 and Rs. 1,730 respectively paid by the employer-bank to the assessee cannot be treated as perquisite, and accordingly deleting the same from the taxable income of the assessee. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby set aside and that of the ITO is restored. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 100 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... penalty is not imposable. In this case there is bona fide on part of the assessee, in view of the fact that the CTD are purchased by the assessee in the name of her daughter, when she was minor and it is the daughter Miss Gauri Tulsi, who encashed these on attaining the age of majority. Therefore, it is proved that the amount in dispute is belonging to Miss Gauri Tulsi and it cannot be held otherwise, if it is given to the assessee after 21 months of the encashment of the CTD. Moreover, if it is not shown as liability in the wealth-tax assessment, it cannot be held that there is no bona fide on the part of the assessee that because it is merely an omission. 14. In view of our above discussion and reasons thereto, we hold that there is no basis for imposing and sustaining the penalty in the case of the assessee. Therefore for these reasons we hold that the AAC is justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the ITO on the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 98 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... n the income shown and finally determined is very small. We, respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of K.L. Mangal Sain hold that concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 8,000 was not due to any fraud or gross or wilful neglect and, therefore, the burden which lay on the assessee had already been discharged by the aforesaid evidence. The Deptt. thereafter not collected other reliable evidence. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, we are convinced that the assessee had discharged the initial onus which lay on it. On the contrary, the Department failed to collect sufficient material to establish the concealment of income. We, therefore, hold that penalty in this case was not liveable as the factum of concealment had not been proved by cogent evidence. The penalty confirmed by the AAC is knocked off. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and in case penalty is paid, the same shall be refunded.
-
1986 (9) TMI 97 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... d going through the records find that the ITO has disallowed expenses of Rs. 5,000 over and above the lumpsum addition of Rs. 5,000 which is at variance with the procedure followed by him in asst. yr. 1980-81. As we observe from the order of the ITO in para 3 even the lumpsum addition of Rs. 5,000 has been made as according to the ITO there is no check over the expenses . We accordingly do not understand the logic of making a further disallowance of Rs. 3,000. 17.1. For the detailed reasons given in our order pertaining to asst. yr. 1980-81, we allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the addition of Rs. 5,000 as well as Rs. 3,000 made by the ITO and as sustained by the AAC. 18. As a result the appeal for asst. yr. 1981-82 is allowed. 19. Before we part with these appals, we would like to record that the ld. counsel of the assessee has argued these appeals commendably and has brought on record all facts in detail and as should be normally done. We record our appreciation.
-
1986 (9) TMI 96 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Business Loss, Year In Which Deductible ... ... ... ... ..... t in mind the various other case laws cited by both sides in coming to the conclusion that we have. 7. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 in the assessee s appeal challenges the levy of interest under section 139(8) and 217(1A). 8. We find from the order of the CIT(A) that he has held that interest under both provisions is chargeable. He has, however, left the option to the company to move an application for waiver of interest under the rules. Before us, it has been contended that the levy interest is consequential to the disallowance of loss amounting to Rs. 2,87,516 in respect of stolen jeeps. The learned D. R., On the other hand, relies totally on the order of the CIT (A) as regards charging of penal interest. We after hearing the rival contentions do accordingly hold that consequential relief be allowed to the assessee as a result of the decision that we have taken in respect of ground No. 1 pertaining to the loss in respect of stolen jeeps. 9. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 95 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Deductions, Long-term Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... en made. This letter has not been referred to either by the ITO or by the Commissioner (Appeals). In fitness of things, the assessee may be given a fresh opportunity in this regard and his claim be adjudicated de novo in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the discussion which we have set out above. 9.1 Before we part, we may say that the decision in the case of Gautam Sarabhai does not advance the case of the assessee any further. On the contrary, it states the proposition on the same lines which we have set out here inasmuch as the adjustment of capital loss against capital gain has to be made first before determining the total income and the relief under section 80T has to be given effect to thereafter. This decision as pointed out earlier fortifies the view which we have taken. 9.2 In the view which we have taken, it is not considered necessary to consider other points raised in the grounds of appeal. 10. As a result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 77 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on under section 256 of the 1961 Act to the High Court was contemplated only in those cases where the Tribunal had refused to state the case on the ground that no question of law arises and not in those cases where the Tribunal had rejected the application on the ground that it was barred by time. Coming to the fourth application, namely, the application in regard to the assessment year 1978-79, it may be pointed out that it is true that Reference Application No. 155 of 1984 which was the application in regard to this assessment year had been decided on merits after condoning the delay, but it is equally true that the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal on findings which are essentially findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence. In view of those findings, it is not possible to take the view that any question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. All these four applications are accordingly dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... t may further be pointed out that it is settled law that no one has vested right in the forum. The assessee cannot claim to have a substantive right to have the penalty proceedings finalised by a particular officer notwithstanding the fact that the jurisdiction of that officer has by a statutory provision been taken away before final orders could be passed in the penalty proceedings. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 1. Suffice it to say that, so far as this case is concerned, it was a case dealing with the quantum of penalty and not with the jurisdiction of an officer who was competent to pass an order of penalty. The said case, in our opinion, is clearly distinguishable. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The Department shall be entitled to its costs which is assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1986 (9) TMI 75 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... h related to this very assessee for the same assessment year, i.e., 1968-69. Since this court has held that the expenditure for repair of the furnaces was revenue expenditure and was deductible as such, that opinion must prevail in the present case as well. The expenditure was obviously revenue in nature. That being so, it was a deductible expense. Following the view taken by this court in the aforesaid case CIT v. Seraikella Glass Works (P) Ltd. 1986 157 ITR 584 (Pat), we hereby hold that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the entire amount of Rs. 5,02,654 was deductible for computing surtax liability. The reference is answered accordingly. In the result, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1986 (9) TMI 74 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Contribution To Gratuity Fund, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... urt in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585. Viewed in that light, the following question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s order reducing the chargeable profits by Rs. 76,760 on account of contribution to the employees gratuity fund ? We accordingly direct the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, to draw up a statement of the case and refer to this court for its opinion the question of law stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 73 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ct, 1910, read with the award dated December 30, 1976 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the entire interest of Rs. 2,39,951 was liable to be taxed in the assessment year 1978-79, and not as income of the different previous years on the basis of accrual of such income yearwise ? Question No. 3 has not been pressed by counsel for the applicant before us. This application is allowed in part. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 72 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d as income-tax Reference No. 84 of 1978. It was decided by a Division Bench of this court on 28th March, 1980 (Addl. CIT v. Ram Kripal Tripathi 1980 125 ITR 408). The two questions mentioned above which had been referred to this court were answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The decision given by the Tribunal in the case giving rise to Income-tax Reference No. 84 of 1978, referred to above, has been relied on by the Tribunal in deciding the appeal in the instant case. The question which has been referred to this court in the instant case is identical to the two questions which were answered by this court in ITR No. 84 of 1978. The decision of this court in that case is reported as Addl. CIT v. Ram Kripal Tripathi 1980 125 ITR 408. For the reasons recorded in that decision, we answer the question referred to in this case also in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ection 254(2) of the Act on the ground that it was virtually a review application ? The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, is accordingly directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. The applicant shall be entitled to Costs assessed at Rs. 125.
-
1986 (9) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Guest House, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... f the nature of guest house within the meaning of section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the expenditure in respect of them should be allowed as deduction ? The application is accordingly allowed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... able question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. This application is accordingly allowed in part to this extent that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. The application in regard to the other questions is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... count of the Tribunal s failure to fully consider and appreciate the relevant facts ? We accordingly direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 67 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner of Income-tax under section 263(1) of the Act. The order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial for not having taken note of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. It was prejudicial to the Revenue, as the necessary enquiry had not been made by the Income-tax Officer. In that view of the matter, the second question also has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the case of Pushpa Devi 1987 164 ITR 639 , we clearly held that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rambha Devi, i. e., the present case, was not correct. We reiterate that view once again. For the reasons stated above, the references are thus disposed of. Both the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
