|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 142 Records
-
1997 (9) TMI 158
... ...
... ... ..... d purchases are fully vouched and had been produced before the AO. The stand of the assessee that the details of alleged comparable cases were not supplied to the assessee could not be refuted by the learned Departmental Representative. Admittedly the accounts are audited and the AO had looked into the audit report as well. This fact is also ascertainable from the assessment order itself. We, therefore, hold that in the absence of any defects found in the audited books of account and merely because the profit declared as per books is slightly low as compared to the preceding year in which plausible explanation has been furnished, rejection of book results is not justified. In a composite trading account of semi-wholesale and retail business, a gross profit of 9.25 per cent on declared sales cannot be said to be unreasonable. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and direct the AO to accept the book results. 8. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 157
... ...
... ... ..... before us and as such we are unable to ascertain the actual rate of royalty paid by the Bombay company to the assessee. We, therefore, restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to allow the payment of royalty to the assessee at the rate which was settled between the Bombay Company and the foreign company for the said technical know-how. The order of the CIT(A) is hereby set aside. 9. Ground No. 2 relates to the direction to the AO not to deduct the amount of capital subsidy received from the cost of assets while allowing depreciation and investment allowance under the IT Act. During the course of hearing it was urged that the issue is covered by the judgment of the apex Court in the case of CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals (1994) 121 CTR (SC) 201 (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC), in favour of the assessee. 10. Since this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the apex Court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 156
... ...
... ... ..... addition of Rs. 1,73,000. 29. The next ground No. 3(i) relates to charging of interest under s. 139(8) of the Act. With regard to this issue it was urged on behalf of the assessee that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shakti Tiles Industries vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 612 (MP), in favour of the assessee in which it is held that the interest under s. 139(8) can only be leviable in a regular assessment and the assessment framed after issuance of notice under s. 149 is not a regular assessment. 30. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble High Court and find that the assessment was framed after issuance of notice under s. 148 of the Act and, as such, the assessment cannot be called a regular assessment. Since it is not a regular assessment, interest under s. 139(8) is not leviable. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the interest. 31. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 155
... ...
... ... ..... k. The impugned transactions being with the villagers, who normally do not have bank accounts and resort to selling their old gold ornaments when cash is needed by them, we hold that there did exist unavoidable circumstances for making cash payments to them. We, therefore, agree with the findings of the CIT(A) and decline to interfere. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails. 9. In the cross-objection, the first ground regarding maintenance of addition of Rs. 50,153 on account of undervaluation of closing stock of gold ornaments has not been pressed. It is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. The remaining grounds are only in support of the order of the CIT(A). Since we have already upheld the order of the CIT(A) in appeal of the Revenue, these grounds have become infructuous and are dismissed as such. 10. In the result, the cross-objections of the assessee also fails. 11. In fine, the appeal of the Revenue as also the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 154
... ...
... ... ..... were part of the sale consideration and, therefore, it would not be treated as a separate benefit like the one conferred on the direct exporters. This contention of course requires a detailed enquiry with reference to the terms of the agreement and, therefore, it is not possible for the AO to decide whether the claim made by the assessee is proper or otherwise. In the light of the direct decision of the Bombay High Court as well as various decisions rendered by this Tribunal, the action of the AO in making prima facie adjustments regarding the relief claimed under s. 80HHC is erroneous and unsustainable. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to rectify the intimation deleting the addition made as a result of the recomputation of the benefit under s. 80HHC of the IT Act. Consequently, the additional tax levied under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act is also deleted in respect of the said adjustment. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 153
Concealment Of Income, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... er any order has been passed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeals in these cases. We, however, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in relation to the amount of difference between the income shown by these assessees in their respective original returns and the income as may be finally determined as per the order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeals. In case, these assessees have not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings, the penalty should be restricted to the amount of difference in income as shown in the original returns and the income determined after giving effect to the order of the CIT(A). The findings given by the CIT(A) while confirming the penalty in all these cases mentioned at Sl. Nos. 29 to 76 is modified to the aforesaid extent. 12. In the result, the appeals mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 28 are dismissed and the appeals mentioned at Sl. Nos. 29 to 76 are disposed of as indicated hereinbefore.
-
1997 (9) TMI 152
Assessment Year, Capital Asset, Capital Gains In Respect, Set On ... ... ... ... ..... possible for the assessee to produce those employees who had left the service with the assessee long ago. The CIT (Appeals), therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of Rs. 12,000 claimed by way of collection charges. 9.5. On a careful consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances as elaborately discussed in the order of the CIT(Appeals), we are of the view that the CIT (Appeals) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction in respect of the said sum of Rs. 12,000 as collection charges. The amount of collection charges so incurred by the assessee appears to be reasonable in view of the total income from the house property assessed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,61,652. The CIT(Appeals) had rightly directed the Assessing Officer to allow the same. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Ground No. 2 of Revenue s appeal is also rejected. 10. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 151
Accounting Year, Additional Tax, Assessed Tax, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Mistake Apparent From Record, Previous Year
-
1997 (9) TMI 150
Assessment Year, Book Entries, Entertainment Tax, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... nce to M/s. Shubhra Motels was Rs. 55,000. There being no evidence to hold that there was a direct nexus with the borrowed funds, we would delete the addition of Rs. 9,900 as sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals). 18. The next contention pertaining to the assessment year 1988-89 relates to disallowance of Rs. 15,000 made out of travelling and conveyance expenses. On going through the details we find that the assessee has not worked out the expenses incurred under different heads as per Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules. The total expenses claimed on the other hand are Rs. 72,901. We find that this included the expenses incurred on print bill which are substantial. Considering this we would reduce the disallowance to Rs. 5,000. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 10,000. 19. The next ground of appeal relating to disallowance of Rs. 30,000 and the contention regarding period of 18 months are not pressed and hence not discussed. 20. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 149
... ...
... ... ..... ly explained. In the assessment order the AO has also referred to the statement of the manager regarding the withdrawal of money by the partners. The AO has not given any reason why the statement of the manager was disbelieved. In view of the fact that the repayment has not been doubted by the AO, we hold that there is no justification for rejecting the claim that the assessee had utilised Rs. 6,75,000 from the withdrawal from Manju Enterprises for the purpose of investment in the property. In this view of the matter we delete the addition for the asst. yr. 1994-95. 13. For the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97, the assessment of the undisclosed income has been on the basis of the income as shown by the assessee in the cash-flow statement. For both the years only the interest from firms and salary from the firms, as admitted by the assessee, have been brought to tax. As such, we find no reason to interfere. 14. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 148
Appellate Tribunal, Power To Rectify Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... ed by their representative in the Calcutta Office. In view of this neither the ratio of this decision is applicable to the facts of the instant case nor the contention of the revenue holds good. 21. In view of the above as well as for the reasons given in the aforesaid paragraphs, we come to the conclusion that the provision of sub-section(l) of section 254 in its true spirit had not been complied with while passing the ex parte order dated 10-9-1996 and that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing. We, therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, hold accordingly and set aside the ex parte order of the Tribunal dated 10-9-1996 and restore the appeal in all fairness and in the interest of justice. 22. As the original ex parte order of the Tribunal dated 10-9-1996 is set aside and the appeal is recalled, the registry is directed to fix up the appeal for fresh hearing. 23. In the result, the misc. application is allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 147
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessment order was made when the effect to the appellate orders of the earlier assessment years had not been given. The learned CIT(A) has also given his directions merely on the assumption that the AO had wrongly allowed the assessee a deduction of Rs. 93,26,845 based on earlier years. In these circumstances we are of the view that the question regarding the valuation of closing stock is required to be looked into once again after taking into consideration the final position as emerging in the earlier assessment years and after taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee in respect of facts of his case. We, therefore, restore the question of valuation of closing stock and the adjustment to be made in computation of total income in respect thereof, if any, to the file of the AO to be decided afresh after allowing the assessee reasonable opportunities of being heard in the matter. 14. For statistical purposes, this appeal shall be treated as allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 146
Actual Cost, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Being Heard, Borrowed Capital, Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred
-
1997 (9) TMI 145
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Mistake Apparent From Record, Original Order, Tax Liability
-
1997 (9) TMI 144
Appellate Tribunal, Power To Rectify Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... well as on the ground of being based on incorrect facts, but still in the interest of justice, we have preferred to decide the various alleged mistakes, claimed to have been crept in the Tribunal s order in the guise of mistakes rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, on merits and have come to the conclusion that there is no mistake in the Tribunal s order as suggested and claimed by the assessee, which can be termed mistake apparent from the record and rectifiable under the provisions of section 254(2), though, of course, subject to our clarifications relating to the narration regarding number of grounds clarified in para 1 of this order and para 11(viii). The present M.A. is nothing but an attempt to argue the already decided appeals afresh in the guise of pointing out the mistakes in the Tribunal s order. 3. In the result, the assessee s Miscellaneous Application is allowed in part to the extent of our clarifications in para 11(i) and para 11(viii) only.
-
1997 (9) TMI 143
Remission Or Cessation Of Trading Liability ... ... ... ... ..... wable against other income inasmuch as the same constitutes loss incurred in speculative transactions. 28. In ground No. 7, an alternative ground has been taken by the assessee to the effect that the CIT(Appeals) should have directed that loss from speculative business be set off against business income under section 41(1) and/or 28(iv) by holding that such income was from speculation business. Since we have already held above that no deemed income can be assessed either under section 41(1) or 28(iv) in respect of the amount of Rs. 44,69,88,170, this particular ground loses its significance. Hence, this ground is being dismissed. 29. At the time of hearing of the appeal before us, the learned counsel for the assessee did not press ground No. 9 relating to the claim of cancellation of additional tax levied under section 143(1A). As such, this ground is also being dismissed. 30. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partially allowed, to the above-mentioned extent.
-
1997 (9) TMI 142
Rectification Of Mistakes, Computation Of Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... nder section 154 are also valid. The appellate grounds taken up by the assessee in this regard are, hence, being dismissed. 6. The other ground has been taken against levy of additional tax. Additional tax has been levied strictly in accordance with the amended provisions of section 143(1A). Hence, we do not find any thing defective in levy of additional tax also. 7. Lastly, levies of interest under section 234B have also been challenged by relying on the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT 1996 217 ITR 72/85 Taxman 201 in a later decision, the Patna High Court itself has considered its earlier order in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. to be not correct and has referred the matter to a larger Bench. Hence, we do not find much reason to follow the above decision of the Patna High Court. This ground relating to levy of interest under section 234B is also therefore being dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 141
... ...
... ... ..... d by the provisions of s. 37(2) and the disallowance made was deleted. 23. We have heard the learned representative of the Revenue as well as the assessee and also considered the facts. It is evident from the facts given that the assessee paid hotel expenses of Rs. 19,375 for stay of auditors and salt brokers during the year. Obviously the expenditure incurred was on hospitality provided to the auditors and salt brokers during their stay and that also included charges on food, beverages, etc. The expenses incurred are clearly caught by the mischief of Expln. 2 to sub-s. (2A) of s. 37 of the IT Act. The AO has thus made the disallowance rightly. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Patel Bros. and Co. Ltd. and Ors. (1995) 126 CTR (SC) 32 (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC). In this view of the matter we vacate the order of the first appellate authority and restore that of the AO. 24. In the result the Revenue appeal is partly allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 140
Accrual Of Income, Leasing Company ... ... ... ... ..... oller and suit for recovery of principal amount as well as interest became barred by limitation. Interest therefore did not accrue. Evidently the facts of this case are distinguishable and ratio of this decision also does not rescue the assessee from the situation. (vi) Jitpan Holdings (P.) Ltd. s case In this case, assessee made provision for bad debt in respect of the principal amount and the same was accepted by the revenue. Interest amount due on such principal amount was not held taxable. The facts of this case are also distinguishable and ratio of this decision also does not support the claim of the assessee. 7. Having considered all the facts, ratio of various decisions and material on records, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer rightly charged income on account of service charges on accrual basis. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of the first appellate authority and the same is upheld. 8. In the result, assessee s appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 139
... ...
... ... ..... ) is not justified in deleting the addition under s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961. There were outstanding sales-tax liabilities amounting to Rs. 77,816 and Rs. 23,895 for asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1989-90, respectively shown at the end of the financial years. The AO added the same under s. 43B. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the additions following the judgment of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of Rajesh Tea Co. and K.S. Lokhandwala. 15.1 After hearing both the sides, we hold that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chandulal Venichand and Ors. (1994) 118 CTR (Guj) 257 (1994) 209 ITR 7 (Guj) and the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. etc., vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 364 ((1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC). Accordingly, these grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. 16. In the result, ITA Nos. 926 and 927 are allowed in part while rest of the appeals of the Revenue are allowed.
........
|
