|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 155 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 179 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... the open Court, however, so far written orders have not yet been communicated so far. In the interest of justice, it is, therefore, prayed to communicate not only written orders but also next date of hearing for argument on law and facts. But, subsequently in the written application as also in affidavit, Shri Mangla claimed that additional grounds of appeal were not only admitted but Members also issued directions to learned Dy. CIT(A) to adjudicate these grounds. Thus, admitted grounds automatically became accepted grounds and decision favourable to Shri Mangla announced on those grounds. We have only very limited record with us but if all record available with the AO is scrutinised, many such instances are sure to be found. We do not wish to say anything further except that the claim of the assessee is wrong, liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. In the light of above, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 11. In the result, assessee rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 177 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... salary income earned from Shri Kamal Singh, the return of Shri Prem Singh showed no such income. The AO estimated the job work income of Shri Rakesh Singh at Rs. 30,000 and that of Shri Prem Singh at Rs. 30,000. The learned CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 6,000 allowing a relief of Rs. 3,000 in the case of both the parties in regard to the job receipts. An addition of Rs. 6,000 on this account was confirmed. In view of the fact that no accounts were maintained by the parties relief allowed at Rs. 3,000 in the hands of both the parties is by no means unjustified or unreasonable. The Revenue wrongly mentioned the amount of Rs. 9,000 in the ground of appeal raised in both the cases. We would uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in the cases of both the assessees and dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. 22. In the result, ITA Nos. 8419, 8422/Del/1991 and 5405/Del/1990 are partly allowed whereas assessee rsquo s appeal in ITA No. 5899/Del/1990 is dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 176 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... direct the AO to allow Rs. 500 towards miscellaneous expenses. 20. The first ground is about the disallowance of depreciation. Assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 5004.48 Assessee had appended the depreciation chart to his IT return. It is no doubt true that assessee claimed only Rs. 1,508.84 as depreciation in the P and L a/c. Without stating anything for disallowing the rest of the claim, the ITO allowed only Rs. 1,508.84 towards depreciation. Thus, according to the assessee there was short allowance of depreciation to an extent of Rs. 3,495.24. In the appeal the CIT(A) had simply restored the matter to the ITO. After going through the record, we hold that there is no justification for the CIT(A) to remand the matter to the ITO again and we direct that whole of the depreciation claimed, viz., Rs. 5,004.84 should be allowed to the assessee. That means we order the relief of Rs. 3,495.24 for incorrect calculation of depreciation. 21. In the result, appeal is partly allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 175 - ITAT DELHI
Amnesty Scheme, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... ne falling under the Amnesty Scheme. As the ground has not been supported, this stands rejected. 18. Taking up for consideration the appeals under section 271(1)(a) filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, I am of the view that the order passed by me in respect of the penalties under section 271(1)(c) would be squarely applicable since these penalties have been levied by the ITO and confirmed by the first appellate authority on the same set of facts as discussed in the 271(1)(c) appeals. No other reasons have been recorded by the tax authorities for penalising the assessee. In this view of the matter, the penalties under section 271(1)(a) are also cancelled following the views expressed by me earlier in respect of penalties under section 271(1)(c). 19. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed whereas the appeal filed by the revenue in respect of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1982-83 is dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 174 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... the difference in the stock was partly on account of the returned goods. 9. A similar claim of the assessee regarding the valuation of closing stock was considered by us in the appeal relating to the asst. yr. 1985-86. In that appeal, we have held that the Revenue authorities were justified in making the addition on account of the discrepancy of the stock with reference to the statement given before the bank. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1986-87 in ITA No. 726/Coch/87, dt. 5th Sept., 1994 wherein an addition of Rs. 1,90,574 on account of the under valuation of closing stock was sustained for the asst. yr. 1986-87. In the circumstances of this case, we do not agree with the learned representative that the AO should not have made the addition on the basis of the stock as per the statement given before the bank. 10. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. The AO will revise the assessment accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 173 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ly. 11. Having regard to the facts of the case before us, we find that the assessee has been frequently changing the method of accounting in respect of a particular item of income to suit its convenience. If in one year the cash incentive is accounted on cash basis and then it is changed to receipt basis and then again switched back to the cash basis, the AO would be justified in rejecting that method, unless there is compelling reason for such a change. It is not the assessee s claim that there is any uncertainty regarding the receipt of the cash incentive or that there would be difficulty in getting the amount from the Government Department. The CIT(A) is, therefore, justified in confirming the order passed by the AO rejecting the change in the method of accounting cash incentive and allowing the same on due basis. In the circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 172 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... on by the appellant after 15th June, 1988, the date of search. The CIT(A) held that there was no evidence to show that the appellant did not indulge in any such transactions after the search, though there might be some truth in the contention. Taking into account, the contention put forth by the appellant s representative, the CIT(A) reduced the estimate of income from such business to Rs. 10,000. Still aggrieved, the appellant disputes the estimate. 35. As already stated above, the CIT(A) reduced the estimate of income from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 10,000 taking into consideration the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that after the date of search there was no business carried on by the appellant. Since the CIT(A) s estimate of income at Rs. 10,000 appears to be quite reasonable, we find no good reason to interfere with his order. Therefore, this ground is decided against the appellant. 36. In the result, the appeal is allowed on all the grounds except on ground No. 9
-
1996 (9) TMI 171 - ITAT COCHIN
Agricultural Income, Agricultural Land, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, High Court, Interest Income, Original Assessment
-
1996 (9) TMI 170 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Lease Rent, Mercantile System, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... The contentions of the assessee amongst other things are also that the ITO should have followed the decisions of the predecessor the Commissioner (Appeals) who gave a similar direction for the other assessment years not presently before us, on the basis of which the present Commissioner (Appeals) has given similar directions. In our opinion, this contention cannot be accepted as in taxation, the principle of res judicata cannot be applied. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1982 138 ITR 326, at page 333 (middle portion) in which it was held that it is now well settled that the decision of the ITO or a Tribunal in regard to a particular year does not operate as res judicata for the subsequent year. 16. Thus, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned before us for all the years is reversed and those of the ITO is restored. 17. In the result, the appeals by the revenue are allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 169 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Mercantile System, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... both sides but since none of them is directly on point, we have not referred to them. 27. For these reasons, we uphold the percentage on completion method followed by the assessee. The addition of Rs. 14,28,05,131 is decided and the appeal is allowed. 28. A further direction is necessary. The CIT(A) has, by order dated 23-7-1995 passed under section 154, dealt with the alternative ground and directed the Assessing Officer to allow estimated expenses on the basis of Calcutta Co. Ltd. Since we have deleted the addition itself, there is no scope for upholding the allowance of the estimated expenses. Therefore, though there is no appeal now before us against the CIT(A) s order under section 154, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT 1981 131 ITR 451, we have to issue consequential directions, which we hereby do to the effect that the assessee would not be entitled to any deduction pursuant to the CIT(A) s order dated 23-7-1995.
-
1996 (9) TMI 168 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Assessment Year, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... buildings, the structure put up by it cannot constitute stock-in-trade in its hands. The proviso to section 40(3) does not therefore apply and the CIT(A) was wrong in invoking the same. 13. So far as the valuation of the structure is concerned, we find that this matter has not been adjudicated upon by the CIT(A) since she had held that the building was not includible in the assessments. As there is no adjudication on this point, the proper course for us would be to restore the question to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision in accordance with law and after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. We direct accordingly. 14. To sum up, we hold that the building was rightly included as an asset in the assessee s assessment for the years under appeal and to that extent the orders of the CIT(A) are reversed. The question of valuation of the building, as already stated, is restored to the CIT(A). 15. In the result, the appeals by the revenue are partly allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 167 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Assessment Year, Attributable To, Borrowed Capital, Deduction Of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... y was made entirely out of own funds. But, the learned counsel observed that such a statement would not be relevant. In the circumstances, on a perusal of the printed accounts we have to infer that the assessee did not have own funds or other non-interest-bearing funds to make the interest-free advance in question to the subsidiary company which is admittedly a non-trade advance or an advance for purposes other than those related to the business of the assessee. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the simple expedient of opening a separate bank account and routing the advances through such a separate account will not save the assessee from the ratio of the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court cited supra. We are also of the view that the assessee is squarely hit by the decision of the Apex Court cited supra. In the circumstances, we reject the ground taken by the assessee in respect of the allowance of Rs. 19,47,643. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 166 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Year, Interest Payments, Per Annum ... ... ... ... ..... mit of assessment year 1988-89 cannot be considered to be authorised by the General Meeting. The interest payment to that extent is, therefore, required to be disallowed. Ultimately, For assessment year 1988-89, we uphold the action of the CIT(A) in allowing the interest payment to the extent of 10 only of the advance call amount of Rs. 73,55,110. Excess payment to the extent of 2 1/2 is, therefore, required to be disallowed. The Assessing Officer being directed to modify the assessment accordingly, So far as, however, assessment year 1992-93 is concerned, since the interest payment has been claimed at 10 per annum only, the entire interest payment is allowable. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the CIT(A) and direct that the entire interest payment be allowed in this year. 11. In the result, the departmental appeal for assessment year 1988-89 is partially allowed to the above-mentioned extent, whereas the assessee s appeal for assessment year 1992-93 is allowed in full.
-
1996 (9) TMI 165 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
A Firm, Additions To Income, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... sophisticated legal devices to avoid tax and to expose the devices for what they really are and to refuse to give judicial benediction. Respectfully, following the same, we refuse to give our benediction to this colourable device and we hold that the profit shown to have been earned by M/s. Shreejee Traders is really the profit of the assessee-company. It has, thus, been rightly assessed in the hands of the company. 22. Before parting with the matter, we may mention that the reliance of the assessee on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Raman and Co. is misplaced. It was held therein that income which accrues to the trader is taxable in his hands, but not income which could have accrued. However, this is not the principle being applied here. The principle being applied is that of exposing a colourable device under the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of McDowells and Co. Ltd. 23. For the above reasons, the assessee s appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 164 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
Assessment Year, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... of installation or in the previous year in which machinery or plant was first put to use, it is clear that while the user of machinery presupposes installation, installation does not mean that the machinery was used. In view of our finding that the machinery in this case was put to use in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1987-88, it implies that the installation also was completed in that previous year. Therefore, this decision does not in any way support the assessee s case that it is entitled to the grant of investment allowance in assessment year 1988-89. 10. To conclude, while we appreciate the valiant effort put in by Shri O.P. Vaish, ld. counsel, to retrieve the assessee s case, we are unable to concur with him. We would commend the approach accorded by the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative, Shri H.D. Dwivedi to the issue, while representing the State, which helped us in appreciating the facts more effectively. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 163 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... arty in cash within the meaning of 273B of the Act. 6.6. The assessee has also strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vir Sales Corporation vs. Asstt. CIT. We note that though this decision was cited before the CIT(A) but he has not considered the ratio of this decision in his order. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal and find that in that case also the penalty was levied under s. 271D as well as 271E. It was found therein that loans/deposits raised were to meet exigencies of business. For detailed and elaborate reasons discussed therein the penalty levied was cancelled. The aforesaid decision thus do support the present case of the assessee. 7. Considering all facts and circumstances discussed above, we hold that there existed a reasonable cause for taking said loans/deposits in cash and accordingly penalty under s. 271D is not leviable. We accordingly cancel the penalty levied. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 162 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Total Income, Voluntary Disclosure
... ... ... ... ..... r different heads enumerated supra. Thus it was not for the fun of it that the assessee came forward with a disclosure of Rs. 7 lacs. Further, there is nothing on record that the said disclosure was made by the assessee under duress, pressure and/or coercion. The retraction after a lapse of over two months from the date of disclosure by the assessee was an afterthought and the affidavit filed by the assessee on which much reliance has been placed by the assessee's counsel, was a self-serving statement. We can, therefore, say that the assessee has failed to prove and establish that he was tortured by searching party but nonetheless it cannot be ignored that the assessee retracted from the earlier statement made on search date and upon retraction he rendered himself untrustworthy and unreliable in the eyes of law and accordingly the addition of Rs. 7 lacs to the income declared is fully justified. 6.1 to 13. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues .
-
1996 (9) TMI 161 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Addition To Income, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Household Expenses, Minor Child, Unexplained Expenditure, Unexplained Investments
-
1996 (9) TMI 160 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Additions To Income, Amnesty Scheme, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Full And True Disclosure, Higher Rate, Income Tax, Secret Commission
-
1996 (9) TMI 120 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ive paise and there was a corresponding increase so far as the son was concerned did not lead to the inference that the five paise share of the father had been transferred to the son. This was the position also in regard to the subsequent alterations in the profit sharing arrangements of the firm, to which the other questions related. That the share of one partner is decreased and that of another partner correspondingly increased does not lead to the inference that the former had gifted the difference to the latter. The profit sharing ratio in a firm can vary for a number of reasons, among them the ability of the partners to devote time to the business of the firm. The gift of a part of a partner s share to another partner has to be established by relevant evidence. The onus of doing so is on the Revenue. It has not been discharged in the present case. No interference with the judgment and the order under appeal is called for. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
........
|
