|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1345 Records
-
1997 (12) TMI 670 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alance in the excise duty Modvat account, noted that the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting. The CIT (Appeals) had decided a similar point in Kodidas Patel's case and the Assessing Officer was directed to follow that decision in the present case also. It would appear that in view of the assessee following mercantile system of accounting, these directions were given in consonance with the earlier decision. It is brought to our notice that the Department has not challenged the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal on a similar issue in I.T.A No. 4726/Ahd/1989 in favour of the assessee, who belongs to the group of the present assessee. The Tribunal has followed that decision and confirmed the findings of the CIT (Appeals) on this question. As the Department has accepted the decision of the Bombay Bench, no such question of law arises as proposed by the applicant. This application is therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 669 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... or not. The revenue authorities did not go into these aspects at all, because they held that the appellant was not entitled for exemption at all as according to them it is a commercial organisation. As the other conditions specified in sections 11 to 13 have not been looked into at all, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be set aside so that the Revenue authorities get an opportunity of looking into this aspect of the matter. We accordingly set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and restore the matter for all the three years to the file of the Assessing Officer who may examine whether the conditions as specified in sections 11 to 13 are satisfied or not. He has to proceed on the basis that the appellant society is a charitable organisation and so it is in principle entitled for the exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. Subject to this remark, we set aside the matter for all the three years. 8. For statistical purposes, the appeals are allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 668 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Land Acquisition Officer vs. Veerabhadrappa (1984) 42 CTR (SC) 357 (1984) 154 ITR 190 (SC), wherein the question to be considered was that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is to be ascertained on market value of the land on the date of the notification under s. 4(1) of the Act and the method of valuation may be'(1) opinion of experts; (2) prices paid within the reasonable time in bona fide transaction on purchase and sale of the land acquired or the land adjustment to those acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of year's purchase of actual or immediately prospective profits from the lands acquired. But that principle has got no relevance to the facts of the instant case. The IT Act is a self-contained code. No other case worth discussion, touching the controversy in hand, has been cited. Thus agreeing with the finding of the learned single judge, all the three special appeals are hereby dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 659 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the application which was made before it under Section 256(1) for referring the aforesaid two questions for the opinion of this Court, it transpires that earlier in the case of the assessee itself in respect of Assessment Years 1984-85 and 1985-86, the Tribunal has rejected such application for referring question No.1. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the applicant that thereafter, Income Tax Applications Nos. 50 and 51 of 1994 was made by the applicant before this Court for referring similar questions, but those applications were rejected by this Court on 4th April, 1994. We do not find any valid reason for taking a different view of the matter. This application is therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 654 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... trification of the colony. 3. It is not the case of the revenue before this Court nor it was the case before the Tribunal that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was excessive or unreasonable. The question whether or not on the facts obtaining the liability to incur the expenditure should have been allowed as deduction in computing the taxable income, the law laid down by this Court in the case referred hereinabove applies with full force. The Tribunal in its order has referred to certain other decisions of other High Courts in support of the view it has taken but it is not necessary to multiply decisions. Suffice it to say that in Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1959 37 ITR 1 (SC), the Supreme Court has also expressed a similar view as taken by this Court and by the Tribunal. That was also a case of development. 4. In view of the decisions cited above, in our opinion, no statable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The application is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1997 (12) TMI 653 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... efer Para 4.1(b) Profit & Loss Account Units Rate Amount Units Rate Amount To Purchase of Raw Materials 100 12 1,200 By Sales 60 15 900 Less Stock of Raw Materials 40 12 480 Raw Materials Consumed 60 12 720 Less MODVAT credit 60 2 120 60 10 600 To Excise Duty 60 3 180 To Gross Profit 120 900 900 The following entries will be passed (i ) At the time when such credit is availed of and adjusted against the excise duty which becomes payable. Excise Duty paid Dr. ₹ 180 To MODVAT Credit Availed Account ₹ 180 (Being the payment of excise duty from the MODVAT credit available to the company) (ii ) At the year end, to the extent raw material items have been consumed in the production. MODVAT Credit Availed Account Dr. ₹ 120 To Materials Consumed ₹ 120 (Being the set-off of the MODVAT credit availed against materials consumed) (iii ) The credit balance in the MODVAT Credit Availed Account will be deducted from the value of the closing stock of raw material.
-
1997 (12) TMI 652 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Appellate Tribunal Rules and since the right was sought to be assailed on behalf of the taxpayer also with reference to the same rule, we were constrained to hear both the sides so that the issue may be decided in the light of the rule. Otherwise, as we have said in the opening part of our order, both sides had initially agreed that Mr. Modi would assist Mr. Tralshawala who would address arguments in connection with the appeal. Perhaps the litigation was unfortunate and could have been avoided. However, we place on record that we derived able assistance from both the sides while deciding the point. 34. For the above reasons, we hold that we cannot hear arguments addressed by Mr. Modi either on the basis of the letter of the CIT-I, Mumbai, dated 1-9-1997 or on the basis of Mr. Tralshawala's letter of appointment dated 27-8-1997. 35. The appeal will now be taken up for hearing in the month of January 1998. Registry to issue notices to both the sides fixing a suitable date.
-
1997 (12) TMI 651 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ear in question. Therefore, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that even in the cases of the other donors who did not appear in pursuance of the summons issued under section 131, the amounts cannot be held to represent the assessee’s undisclosed income. The learned Departmental Representative, in an attempt to counter the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee, merely relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 14. After hearing both sides and also after going through the ratios of the decisions cited above, which clearly support the case of the assessee, I hold that there is no evidence in the possession of the department to hold that the gifted amounts from these three parties represent the assessee’s undisclosed income. Therefore, the total of the gifted amounts from these three parties cannot be added as the undisclosed income of the assessee. Thus, the whole addition is to be deleted. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 638 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bruary 12, 1991, refers to only deposit of ₹ 11.5 lakhs on June 29, 1990, and not the deposit of ₹ 8.5 lakhs. There was no dispute about the payment of ₹ 8.5 lakhs. It was payable on or before June 30, 1990. In the face of these facts the plea that the sum of ₹ 8.5 lakhs was deposited in the names of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 with the authority on June 29, 1990, cannot be accepted. The point regarding the effect of non-payment within stipulated period is covered against the respondents by the decision of the Supreme Court dated February 17, 1995, in the case of Shri Chand V. Raheja v. Union of India, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18415-16 of 1994. In this view, the order of pre-emptive purchase stands abrogated and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. For the aforesaid reasons, I agree with the conclusions of brother Ramamoorthy J. that all the writ petitions deserve to be allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 597 - INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
... ...
... ... ..... and legislative intent to keep intact the powers of the Settlement Commission to reduce and waive interest even after other income-tax authorities were deprived of such powers as per the long-term fiscal policy and substitution of sections 139(8), 215, 216, 217 and 273 by sections 234A, 234B and 234C, is clear from the reintroduction of the word ldquo interest rdquo in section 245D(6) with effect from June 1, 1987. The learned Chairman in his note above has brought out, inter alia, the circumstances under which the amendment of section 245D(6) reintroducing the word ldquo interest rdquo and the enactment of sections 234A, 234B and 234C got delinked and appeared on the statute book at different times. This note could have formed part of the main order to add weight to the findings recorded in para 48 (page 43) supra. I am in agreement with the answers recorded in paragraphs 48 to 52 (pages 43 and 44) of the foregoing order, to the five questions posed before the Special Bench.
-
1997 (12) TMI 164 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... e third set of decisions given by the learned D.R. are to the effect that provisions of section 263(1) can be applied in cases where proper investigation has not been made by the Assessing Officer. These decisions also do not support the case of the department in view of our finding that proper and sufficient investigation was done by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee. 84. We have also gone through the other judicial decisions cited by the learned senior departmental representative and we are of the view that these decisions do not change the legal position as enumerated by us above. 85. Viewed from any angle, we are therefore of the view that the CIT was not justified in assuming revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. We accordingly set aside his order. 86. Since the assessee has succeeded on the preliminary ground itself, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the merits of the case. 87. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 159 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Interest, Advance Tax, Failure To Pay Advance Tax, Period Of Computation ... ... ... ... ..... the determination of the total income under section 143(1) and where a regular assessment is made, till the date of such assessment. This legislative intention has been achieved by the substitution of the word and for or in sub-section (1). As a result of the amendment, the defaulting assessee shall be liable to pay interest for default in payment of advance tax till the determination of total income under section 143(1) and where regular assessment is made till the date of such regular assessment. 6. In my view, the terminus period for charging interest under section 234B is the date of assessment under section 143(3) where there is regular assessment. Similar view has been expressed by the Special Bench of the Settlement Commission in Sahitya Mudranalaya (P.) Ltd., In re 1995 79 Taxman 463 (ITSC - Bom.). In the light of this discussion, I am of the opinion that the order of the Assessing Officer is in order and the same is restored. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 157 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Additional Tax, Undistributed Profits, Settlement ... ... ... ... ..... ases the assessees failed to establish the genuineness of the loans which were considered as undisclosed investment and added to their income. In the present assessee s case the issue of genuineness of the loans is not at all involved. The assessee has intentionally inflated the expenditure with a view to suppress the commercial profits and taxable income. Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) himself misdirected in applying the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid two cases because the ratio in those cases are not at all applicable to the assessee s case. The ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service (P.) Ltd. s case is fully applicable to the assessee s case, for the reasons stated earlier. We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT (Appeals) and confirm the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. 15. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed while the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 155 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Accrual Of Income, Rebate On Interest ... ... ... ... ..... sessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. Applying the ratio laid down in these two cases, Morvi Industries Ltd and Shiv Prakash Janak Raj and Co. (P.) Ltd., in the case of the assessee, it is clear that the Board Resolution was passed on 20th July, 1983 i. e., after the end of the accounting year for the assessment year 1983-84. Therefore, the interest has accrued to the assessee on 31-3-1983 and accrual of interest is taxable in the hands of the assessee in the assessment year 1983-84. Subsequently events like, letters written in 1992 and 1993 by the Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India regarding reduction in the rate of interest in the case of assessee are of no consequence. We do not find any commercial expediency for reducing the rate of interest of the assessee-company. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 6,09,000 to the total income on account of interest accrued on 31-3-1982. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 152 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... event of any such failure as is mentioned in s. 144 but confers a discretionary power of the ITO to refuse registration in such a case. The discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously but in a lawful manner and on the basis of material circumstances present in the given case. Here at this stage, we find that discretion by the AO was not exercised in a proper manner and opportunity should have been given to the assessee to established the claim of registration and then after verifying the claim he should have examined the registration aspect of the firm. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter should go back to the AO to examine the case afresh in the light of our above observations. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the AO for considering the case of registration afresh. He is also directed to give an effective opportunity to assessee to explain his case. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
1997 (12) TMI 150 - ITAT JABALPUR
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... with the observation 50 per cent of the total amount of depreciation for using the plant and machinery for less than 180 days . Thus, the Assessing Officer has. himself accepted the user of all the cylinders for the purpose of business. He has disallowed the 50 per cent depreciation because cylinders were used for less than 180 days. The learned Departmental Representative is a representative of the Assessing Officer. He cannot dispute a fact, which is accepted by the Assessing Officer himself. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer himself has accepted the user of the cylinders, the learned D.R. cannot dispute it. In view of the legal position and the facts as discussed above, we hold that the assessee is entitled to 100 per cent depreciation on gas cylinders purchased and used during the year under consideration amounting to Rs. 15,32,092. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the assessee s appeal are allowed. 9. to 17. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1997 (12) TMI 149 - ITAT DELHI-D
Tax Deducted At Source, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... could have been rectified by the learned CIT(Appeals) under section 154 of the Act. After having decided the appeal on merits, he could not have set aside the order on perfunctory ground that no appeal lay against the order under section 206C of the Act. 13. Coming to the various decisions relied upon on both sides, we find that most of them are on the subject as to what constitutes mistake apparent from record. The gist of the same has been extracted by us in our discussion as contained above and as such we need not refer to them individually in detail. Suffice to say that we have gone through all the decisions as placed before us on both sides. In the result, the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) passed under section 154 of the Act, is set aside. 14. The cross objections filed by the revenue having become infructuous in view of our order in appeals, are dismissed. 15. In the result, all the appeals are allowed whereas the cross objections filed by the revenue are dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 148 - ITAT DELHI-C
Annual Rental Value ... ... ... ... ..... fficer to determine the ALV of the property with reference to its rateable value as determined by the Municipal Corporation. The value determined by the N.D.M.C. was stated to be under dispute. We direct the Assessing Officer to substitute the figure as determined by the Court on production of the copy of judgment to this effect. 10.7 Next issue in assessee s appeals relates to the allowability of expenditure. Nothing was placed before us to show that the expenditure incurred by the assessee-companies was incidental to the carrying of business. We have perused the impugned order. We find no infirmity in the same. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this count. 10.8 Assessee-companies in the grounds of appeal raised grounds relating to proceedings under section 143(1)(a) and levy of interest. These grounds were not pressed at the time of hearing. We dismiss the same as not pressed. 11. In the result, all the appeals stand partly allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 147 - ITAT DELHI
Trusts, Charge Of Tax When Beneficiaries Unknown ... ... ... ... ..... e can give different names to him. It transpires from the perusal of the object clause of the trust deed that one of the object was to establish temple of specified deity at the residential house for private worship. From the amount spent on the objects of the trust, it can be inferred that no such temple was established. 14. I have considered the totality of facts., It is abundantly clear that the trusts are not genuine. These were created to earn tax free income. I recollect Sir Francis Bacon, who said that the parents of the trust were fraud and fear and the court of conscience was the nurse. The money was collected in the name of God. It was utilised for the benefit of family firm. Genuineness of the donor was not proved beyond the shadow of doubt. The purpose of donation is also not very clear. In these circumstances, the amount of alleged donation was rightly considered as the income of the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeals of the revenue assessees stand allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 146 - ITAT COCHIN
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... sed by the assessee against the validity of the assessment of capital gains are rejected and the assessment is upheld. 16. In the grounds of appeal the assessee has also disputed the relief allowed under section 54F and under section 54B of the Act on the capital gains brought to tax in the assessment. There is also another ground to the effect that the CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the value of land as on 1-4-1974 for fixing the cost of acquisition. No arguments were raised before us in support of these grounds. Further, from the assessment order we notice that the cost of acquisition as on 1-4-1974 only was considered, even though by mistake in the computation the date as 1-1-1964 was shown. In the absence of any arguments raised by the learned counsel in support of these grounds, we find no reason to interfere with the decision given by the CIT (Appeals). These grounds are therefore treated as dismissed. 17. In the result, this appeal by the assessee is dismissed.
........
|
