|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 157 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 387 - ITAT JABALPUR
Undisclosed income ... ... ... ... ..... stated that the expenditure was incurred by Shri Sada Sukh Jaiswal was not enough to hold that the investment in the marriage expenses of Shri Virender Kumar Jaiswal was met by Shri Sada Sukh Jaiswal. As only protective addition has been made in the case of assessee, the necessary addition of being undisclosed income of the assessee under Chapter XIV-B was not satisfied and accordingly the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 11. While holding so, we have also noted that in the original assessment under Chapter XIV-B, no such addition was made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal vide its order dated 23-2-2002 had set aside the original assessment made by the Assessing Officer in respect of addition of Rs. 75,000 only. Thus, the addition of Rs. 1 lakh cannot be made in the fresh assessment which was not inconsequence to the order of the Tribunal. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is, therefore, deleted. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 386 - ITAT JABALPUR
Assessment - Additions to income ... ... ... ... ..... ficer is totally on wrong impression and misunderstanding, we find no cogent reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this particular ground. The ground is dismissed in favour of the assessee. 7. As regards ground No. 2, the Hon rsquo ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Relaxo Foot Wear 123 Taxman 322 (Raj. HC) opined that when there is difference between the statement submitted to the bank and actual statement of accounts no addition is justified because the very purpose of the statement given to the bank is just to have the loan and could not be used for other purpose. When the difference in between these two statements are fully explained no addition can be called for (210 ITR 627). The CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and deleted the addition. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this ground also. 8. The ground is dismissed in favour of the assessee. 9. In the result appeal directed by Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 385 - ITAT JABALPUR
Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue ... ... ... ... ..... r individual cases. As the amount was introduced in the accounts of the firm, the onus of the assessee limited to explain the sources from where the amount has come to the firm. Once the immediate source was already disclosed, the question of any further investigation could have arisen in the case of the individual partner and not in the case of the firm. As the assessee had already discharged his onus cast on it under section 68 of the Act, the question of making further investigation in the matter and that too in the case of a firm did not arise. We, therefore, hold that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind before coming to the conclusion and, therefore, his order cannot be said to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order passed by the Commissioner in respect of those issues where he has directed the Assessing Officer to examine the matter afresh in cancelled. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Trust not assessable under section 164 Representative assessee In this case Madras High Court-held that the tribunal has rightly held that the commissioner was in error in revising the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the shares were indeterminate and that the trust deed is void and vagueness, thus setting aside the revision order. Decision in favor of assessee against the revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 298 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... d as a promoter-director of the said company. (b) Industrial Enterprises case. We have also gone through the decision in this case. As per the facts of this case, the assessee had been able to secure loans sanctioned by banks and financial institutions. These loans had not come in time. In compelling circumstances, the assessee accepted the cash loans from friends as and when emergency arose. Thus, the provisions of section 271D were not held to be applicable. In the present case, no such exigency has been established. Therefore, the said decision is also of no help to the assessee. 29. As the assessee in the present case has violated the provisions of section 269SS, thus penalty was leviable under section 271D. In view of the legal and factual position discussed above, we find no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) vide which penalty levied upon the assessee has been upheld. We confirm the order of the CIT(A). 30. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 295 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
For Concealment Of Income, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) in assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 on the incomes assessed on protective basis. The ITAT held that penalty could not be levied on protective assessment as there could not be any protective penalty. In the case of M.P. Agricultural Corporation the ITAT Nagpur Bench deleted the penalty holding that penalty could not be imposed on the basis of finding of CIT(A) and when no definite concealment was found out. On the other hand in the case of present assessee there is no levy of protective penalty but penalty has been levied on the definite concealment found out by the Assessing Officer during the survey operation. 10. In view of these facts we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) was not justified to delete the penalty. It is a fit case in which penalty under section 271(1)(c) is to be levied. Accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and upheld the order of Assessing Officer. 11. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 292 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Deduction Of Tax At Source, Developement Authority, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... terest is as defined in section 2(28A). There in the order of the State Commission interest means compensation or damages for delay in construction of the house or handing over possession of the same causing consequential loss to the complainant by way of escalation in the price of the property and also on account of distress, disappointment faced by him. Interest in the order has been used merely as a convenient method to calculate the amount of compensation in order to standardise it. Otherwise, each case of the allottee will have to be dealt with differently. Nomenclature does not decide the issue. In our view, therefore, considering the definition of interest as contained in section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act, the provisions of section 194A were not applicable and the GDA was clearly wrong in deducting the tax deducted at source from the interest payable to the complainant. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is upheld and this revision petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 290 - ITAT PANAJI
... ...
... ... ..... in nature because the expenditure incurred related to a project of distribution mechanism for heavy vehicle factory at Avadi, Madras. The learned counsel has also vehemently submitted before us that in any case, the disallowance cannot be done under the provisions of s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act. 4. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and considering the evidence on record we decide as under The whole gamut of the facts as well as for and against arguments which were advanced before us and also the reasoning given in the appellate order as well as the AO rsquo s order definitely go to establish that the disallowance in question is such an issue which is a debatable one and it is a settled principle of law by now that any debatable issue cannot be disallowed by way of intimation under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act unless it is prima facie disallowable adjustment. Hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities. 5. In the result, we accept the appeal of the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 288 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ntal to and was the result of the same. The interest income was totally independent of the borrowings. As pointed out by the High Court of Bombay in CIT vs. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia (1966) 61 ITR 663 (Bom) at p. 669, in interpreting the corresponding s. 12(2) of the 1922 Act, relied on by the ITO also, the expenditure incurred must be for the purpose of making or earning the income which is not the position in the present case. In examining the claim, the incongruities and hardship caused, cannot obviously blur our approach. From this, it necessarily follows that the conclusions of the ITO concurred with by the Commissioner are unexceptionable. 26. Thus, considering the various decisions on the issue we are of the view that the case pleaded by the assessee as ground No. 3 cannot be accepted. The Revenue authorities were justified in rejecting their claim. Their orders do not call for any interference. The order of CIT(A) is confirmed and the appeal by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 287 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... on the Department. In the case of CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. (2002) 173 CTR (Bom) 255 (2002) 254 ITR 565 (Bom), the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court has held that an appeal or reference contrary to the instructions issued by the CBDT in the circular will not be considered by the Courts. Their Lordships of Hon rsquo ble High Court, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal presented by the Revenue in limine as the same was found to be contrary to the binding instructions issued in the CBDT circular. As such, respectfully following the said decision of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue in contravention of the aforesaid CBDT rsquo s circular which is binding on the Revenue. 18. The cross-objection filed by the assessee has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 283 - ITAT NAGPUR
Block Assessment in search case ... ... ... ... ..... that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess the undisclosed income in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIV-B. Due to the operation of the non obstante clause, this exclusion of time by extending the Analogy of section 153 Explanation 1(iii) is not possible in cases of block assessment. The wordings of Explanation 1(ii) of section 158BE and Explanation 1(iii) of section 153 are also not in pari materia the same. The conclusion that one can draw on a plain reading of section 153 Explanation 1(iii) in our view is that the period as fixed under section 142(2A) alone needs to be excluded and not a period of 180 days referred to in section 142(2C). For all these reasons we are unable to accept the argument of the learned D.R. For the reasons stated above the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground of appeal. Part of para 15 and para 16 are not reproduced here as it involve minor issues.
-
2002 (9) TMI 282 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Shaving Products Ltd. has no application to the facts of the present case. We may also observe here that if the assessee-company was of the opinion that it is entitled for higher tax benefits than allowed by the BIFR under section 72A, such higher benefits could have been sought from the BIFR only as held by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. As such, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given herein above, we are of the considered opinion that benefits claimed by the Assessee relying on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. was not available to the assessee-company and the learned CIT(A) was fully justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing the same. His impugned order on this issue is, therefore, upheld. 53. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee as well as that of Revenue are dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 278 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ITA No. 314/JP/2001. Ground No. 1(b) of the Revenue had already been decided. 40. As regards ground No. 1(a) the Revenue agitated on the ground that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,63,500 on account of cash credit while upholding the trading addition of Rs. 3,61,800 by means of telescoping even when there was no live link, direct nexus claimed or established between the trading addition of Rs. 3,61,800 and addition of Rs. 1,63,500 made for non-genuine cash credits. 41. We have considered the rival submissions. We have already deleted the trading addition of Rs. 3,61,800 made by the AO and we have also deleted the addition of Rs. 1,63,500 made on account of cash credits from the hands of the firm as already held in this order. Thus, by this order the dispute regarding telescoping of income stands settled. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 319(Jp)2001 is allowed in part and appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 314(JP) is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 276 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... facts and circumstances of the case, and taking a circumspect view of the entire fact-situation, including the fact that the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue submitted that he does not have the complete record of assessment before him, so he was not in a position, at the moment, to submit the correct/actual position regarding the obtaining of the Dy. CIT rsquo s prior approval by AO for the levy of penalty, I direct the AO to verify the fact of Dy. CIT rsquo s prior approval having been obtained by AO, and if he finds the same to have been obtained, the penalty levied by AO under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of the concealed amount of Rs. 20,000 shall stand, or else, in case of the said prior approval of Dy. CIT having not been obtained by AO, the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of the concealed amount of Rs. 20,000 shall stand cancelled. I order accordingly. 14. In the result, this appeal of Revenue may be treated as allowed in part as indicated above.
-
2002 (9) TMI 275 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... total sales as declared by the assessee-company. After having perused the record, reasons given by the learned CIT(A) and also the reason given by the learned authorised representative, we are of the opinion that the net profit rate of 2.67 per cent arrived at by the AO on the basis of declaration statement before the excise department was not correct. For the reasons given by the learned CIT(A), we find that the figures given by the assessee before the excise department was on estimate basis and correct profit rate earned by the assessee cannot be arrived at on the basis of this statement. Besides, we also find that the AO had not pointed out any serious defect for invoking the provisions of s. 145 of the Act and net profit rate declared during the year under appeal is better than net profit rate declared during the immediately preceding two years. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 274 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... such evidence available with the AO for making this addition. As such, this addition being not based on evidence found as a result of search, the same cannot be sustained in the block assessment, though the same may be considered by AO in regular assessment. We, therefore, delete this addition. 84. Sl. No. 4 on p. 74 of PB pertains to ground No. 10 disputing the addition of Rs. 2,000 in asst. yr. 1996-97 on account of purchase of shares. This issue is similar to that contained in ground No. 10 in the case of PPS (mentioned at Sl. No. 4 on p. 43 of that PB) and the fact-situation of the present assessee, RK, in respect of this ground is identical with that of the case of PPS, and so we follow our decision rendered above in ground No. 10 in the case of PPS and accordingly, we find no fault with the impugned order of AO in making this addition, and so we decline to interfere with the same. 85. In the result ITSSA No. 3/Jp/97 of assessee RK is allowed in part as indicated above.
-
2002 (9) TMI 271 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... specific opportunity was provided by AO to assessee before making the said addition. The learned authorised representative of assessee has relied on the following 1. CIT vs. Zafrul Hasan Iraqi (1998) 62 TTJ (Jp) 795 2. Madholal vs. ITO (1991) 40 TTJ (Jp) (TM) 333 and 3. CIT vs. Smt. Durgawati Singh (1998) 234 ITR 249 (All). 12. I have considered the rival contentions the relevant material on record as also the cited decisions. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case together with the elaborate contention made in the written statement of assessee, I consider it to be not justified on the part of the AO to have made addition in respect of the aforesaid interest income being in the name of assessee rsquo s wife and his three sons. In the circumstance, the deletion of addition by learned CIT(A) is found to be quite proper and justified. I therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 13. In the result this appeal of Revenue being ITA No. 1405/Jp/94 is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 270 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sohan Lal we hold that residential house is owned by the four co-owners and Smt. Kamla Devi Nahar, Shri Ashok Kumar Nahar and Shri Anil Kumar Nahar are not the Benamidars of the appellant. The AO could have taken necessary action in the hands of other co-owners are done by him in the case of Shri Ashok Kumar Nahar. Though we have already held that assessment is null and void, yet on merits we hold that cost of construction should be taken as per PWD rates in the ratio of investment by each co-owner and after that investment by the appellant is to be determined. 74. Ground No. 6 The CIT(A) erred in observing to examine the case from prosecution angle. The appellant should have raised this point at the relevant time. In this case no prosecution has so far been launched. Therefore, we decline to express our opinion on this issue. 75. In the result, the assessment is annulled and the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 266 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... hout looking into the actual consumption and the slabs processed by the assessee which warranted more consumption of electricity in the year under appeal in view of higher job work declared by the assessee. In view of these facts and circumstances, the total receipts taken at Rs. 10 lakhs appears to be at a higher side. The assessee, however, has not challenged the application of provisions of s. 145. In the asst. yr. 1992-93 even after the decision by the learned CIT(A) the AO himself has accepted a profit rate of 20 per cent. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances and the submissions of the assessee as well as past history of the assessee rsquo s case, we consider it fair and reasonable to estimate the total receipts at Rs. 9.25 lakhs and apply a profit rate of 20 per cent on estimate basis. Accordingly the AO shall work out the addition. The order of the AO stands modified accordingly. 11. As a result, the assessee rsquo s appeal stands partly allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 264 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... impugned assessment year the assessee is not entitled to the benefits of s. 11 of the Act and denying the exemption claimed for, the assessee cannot be regarded as charitable institution and confirming the levy of interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 17. We, after considering the arguments advanced by the parties in view of the material available on record and having gone through the order impugned find that the CIT(A) has rejected the first appeal mainly on the basis that in the meantime the registration of the assessee as charitable institution was cancelled/withdrawn without discussing the merits of the case and without following the spirit of expression of the Tribunal in the appeal for the asst. yr. 1994-95. 18. Since we have already allowed the appeal against rejection of registration, the very basis of dismissal of the present appeals by the learned CIT(A), the order of the first appellate authority is reversed. 19. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
........
|
