|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 157 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 262 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... the Act was also raised. This issue has been challenged on the computation of deduction under s. 80Q. While the AO has calculated the deduction in one way, the assessee rsquo s claim of deduction was based on the calculation on some other method. However, during the course of hearing, it was agreed that the deduction under s. 80Q may be calculated on the basis of Board rsquo s Circular No. 621, dt.19th Dec., 1991 (1992) 101 CTR (St) 1 (1992) 195 ITR (St) 184 and Board Circular No. 706, dt.26th June, 1995 and (1995) 126 CTR (St) 85 (1995) 214 ITR (St) 2 . In view of the rival submissions, we set aside this issue and restore back to the file of the AO with the direction that the deduction under s. 80Q of the Act may be calculated on the basis of Board rsquo s circular mentioned above. This ground of appeal is allowed with the above directions. 15. In the result, the appeal for asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93 are allowed whereas the appeal for asst. yr. 1994-95 is partly allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 261 - ITAT DELHI-C
Deductions, Hotels / Tour Operators ... ... ... ... ..... ion, if the CIT found the report defective, then, in our considered opinion, instead of withdrawing the claim, an opportunity should have been provided to the assessee to remove the defect. On the contrary, we find that assessee on its own removed the defect by producing the fresh report dated 27-12-1995 wherein the claim of the assessee was nominally reduced from Rs. 35,12,869 to Rs. 34,25,955. This shows that the claim of the assessee was substantially correct. Accordingly, we are of the view that CIT was not justified in withdrawing the claim. The order of the CIT is, therefore, set aside and the matter is to be restored to the file of Assessing Officer who shall adjudicate upon the matter afresh in the light of fresh certificate filed by the assessee before the CIT. In this process, the Assessing Officer may, if necessary, examine the material on the basis of which the fresh report was issued by the auditors. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed pro tanto.
-
2002 (9) TMI 260 - ITAT COCHIN
Firm, Revision, Interest Of Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... ng Officer. Therefore, the above argument of the assessee also does not stand to reason. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in upholding the orders of the Commissioner for both the years under consideration. 14. Coming to the theory of merger, it is well established that the issue specifically agitated before the Commissioner (Appeals) and adjudicated by him cannot be interfered with by the Commissioner invoking the jurisdiction vested in him under section 263. In such a case, the remedy of the revenue is before a higher forum and not section 263. The revenue cannot appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer directly. It is for this reason that the Commissioner is empowered under section 263 to revise the erroneous and prejudicial order passed by the Assessing Officer. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in upholding the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263. 15. In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 259 - ITAT COCHIN
Firm, Revision, Interest Of Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... ng Officer. Therefore, the above argument of the assessee also does not stand to reason. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in upholding the orders of the Commissioner for both the years under consideration. 14. Coming to the theory of merger, it is well established that the issue specifically agitated before the Commissioner (Appeals) and adjudicated by him cannot be interfered with by the Commissioner invoking the jurisdiction vested in him under section 263. In such a case, the remedy of the revenue is before a higher forum and not section 263. The revenue cannot appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer directly. It is for this reason that the Commissioner is empowered under section 263 to revise the erroneous and prejudicial order passed by the Assessing Officer. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in upholding the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263. 15. In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 258 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-B
Method Of Accounting, Valuation Of Stock ... ... ... ... ..... r (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer charged interest under sections 234B and 234C at the time of completing the assessment. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C is mandatory. The assessee has now filed this appeal before us. 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is consequential only. The ld. DR. didn t advance any specific arguments. 15. We have heard both the parties. While we confirm the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in charging interest under sections 234B and 234C, as the same is mandatory in nature, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow consequential relief after giving effect to this order. This ground of appeal is disposed of in these terms. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 257 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
... ...
... ... ..... though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain. We are of the considered view that when Government of India, absolute owner of the assessee-company, decides to increase the salaries with effect from a certain date and in accordance with certain norms, liability of such increase has definitely arisen. It cannot be said to be a contingent liability on the facts of this case. We have also noted that the provision for liability was worked out on the basis of BPE guidelines and, therefore, it could not be said to be devoid of legally sustainable basis also. 7. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that authorities below erred in declining deduction of Rs. 1,07,00,000 on account of provision for increase in salaries and wages. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the same. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above.
-
2002 (9) TMI 256 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Revision Of Orders prejudicial to interest of revenue ... ... ... ... ..... is in the light of jurisdictional High Court s judgment referred to earlier. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer and find that the learned Commissioner indeed erred in seeking to revise the order of the Assessing Officer on this point also. There was no material before the Commissioner to suggest that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was not a reasonable view. 21. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Assessing Officer, on all the three issues which are subject matter of learned Commissioner s revision, was a reasonable view having regard to the uncontroverted facts of the case and the applicable legal position. Therefore, in considered view, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the impugned order dated 19th January, 1996 passed by the learned Commissioner. 22. In the result, appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 255 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Loss Return ... ... ... ... ..... on-jurisdictional High Court, it is no longer open to the Tribunal to take any other view of the matter than the one taken by the Hon ble jurisdiction High Court. We leave it at that. 24. In the light of above discussions, we are of the considered view that the assessee was not entitled for carry forward and set-off of the loss incurred in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1987-88, as the income-tax return filed for the assessment year was filed beyond the time limit set out in section 139(1) and, accordingly, restriction placed in section 80 of the Act rendered the loss ineligible for carry forward and set off. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, CIT(A) erred in holding that the loss for the assessment year 1987-88, which amounted to Rs. 1,63,408, is required to be set off in this assessment year. To this extent, we vacate the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer. 25. In the result, revenue s appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 254 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Business Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... company to make the contribution to the society and as such we are of the considered view that the contribution to the society is not hit by section 40A(9) of the Act as such an obligation falls within the last part of the said section that the contribution was made by the assessee-company to a fund required to be set up by or under any other law for the time being in force. Besides, there is no dispute that the fund was constituted bona fidely for the welfare of its employees in the smooth running of the business and hence, the said contribution is to be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. 18. In view of the above, we reverse the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee by allowing the grounds of appeal for the assessment year 1990-91 in ITA No. 329/C/ 1996 and by allowing ground Nos. 1 to 5 in the appeal for the assessment year 1991-92 in ITA No. 1126/C/1995. 19-27. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2002 (9) TMI 253 - ITAT CALCUTTA
Speculation Business ... ... ... ... ..... n is on the definition of investment company whose business consists wholly or mainly in dealing in or holding of investments. Since the investments companies have been excluded from Explanation to section 73 w.e.f. 1-4-1988, the said decision of the Supreme Court is inapplicable to the facts of this case in interpreting the Explanation to section 73. The decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajaji Enterprises (P.) Ltd. relates to the law as applicable for assessment year 1985-86 and is, therefore, inapplicable to the facts of this case for assessment year 1997-98. 9.1, therefore, taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration hold that the CIT(A) was wrong to hold that the case of the assessee falls in the excluded category of companies from the operation of section 73. The decision of the CIT(A) is, accordingly, set aside and that of Assessing Officer restored. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 252 - ITAT BOMBAY-I
... ...
... ... ..... ecessary that all the seized documents relating to suppression of wealth should be examined for the assessment purpose . The above remarks of the CIT clearly indicate that he had no material to come to a firm decision that the order of the AO was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that actually some of these seized documents had not actually been examined. If the learned CIT wanted to come to the conclusion that some important documents had not actually been examined, he should have come out at least with an apparent case that examination of such documents would have led to greater amounts of revenue. 22. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that no case has been made out by the learned CIT for invoking the jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. We accordingly quash his order. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 251 - ITAT BOMBAY-H
... ...
... ... ..... in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The contention of the learned counsel that the books maintained means the commercial books of account has no basis whatsoever. For the income-tax purposes, books maintained means the books on the basis of which the taxable income of the assessee can be determined. Therefore, the commercial books has nothing to do with the books maintained by the assessee for the purpose of computation of taxable income. Under the circumstances, we do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel. In view of the discussion above, the contention of the assessee that his case is squarely covered under clause (a) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) is, therefore, rejected. The assessee is, therefore, not entitled for any immunity under the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). The penalties levied by the Department under section 271(1)(c) are, therefore, confirmed. 13. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 250 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Loss Return, Return Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ing the disallowance of interest of Rs. 17,96,757 and proportionate insurance premium out of Rs. 52,254 relevant to plant and machinery. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that these issues have been decided by the learned CIT(A) in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 1987-88. He further pointed out that the Department has not filed any appeal against these issues before the Tribunal. We have gone through the order of the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 1987-88. The learned CIT(A) has decided these issues in favour of the assessee. We have also gone through the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal by the Department. The Department has not taken up these issues before the Tribunal. Under the circumstances these issues have assumed finality at the level of CIT(A), in favour of the assessee. These issues are, therefore decided in favour of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 249 - ITAT BANGALORE-B
... ...
... ... ..... he lower authorities have disallowed the interest of Rs. 2,80,130 and service charges of Rs. 5,14,312 and liabilities written back of Rs. 37,570. In our opinion, these amounts cannot be construed as derived from industrial undertaking. Now, it is well settled that, unless the profit is derived from the industrial undertaking, the same is not eligible for any benefit under s. 80-IA. In those circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of lower authorities. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 13. The other ground of appeal with respect to disallowance of Rs. 21,437 on account of loss on scrap on machinery. The learned representative during the course of hearing submitted that he is not pressing this ground of appeal. Even otherwise, we do not find any infirmity in the order of lower authorities in disallowing a sum of Rs. 21,347 towards the scrap machinery. Accordingly, the order of the lower authorities are also confirmed. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 248 - ITAT BANGALORE-A
Investment Deposit Account ... ... ... ... ..... is to be arrived at before reducing the donation from the Income of the eligible business. Sub-section (3) of section 32AB which defines the profit of eligible business provides for increasing the net profit in respect of certain item. None of the items referred in Sl. Nos. (i) to (vii) of said sub-section provides for increasing the net profit by the amount of donations given. Once again, referring to the decision of ITAT Special Bench in case of Highway Cycle Industries Ltd. and of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. the profit of the eligible business is to be computed as per parts II and III of Schedule VI which requires the assessee to reduce various donations given and treated as an expenditure from the profit to be arrived at. We therefore reverse the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) on this issue and upheld the order of ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly ground Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as above are allowed. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 247 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... technique was definitely a step for the extension of knowledge. In the present case, the change in the shape of cornea was done with the help of Excimer Laser machine and as such it cannot be said that the machinery was not used by the assessee. From the above facts, it is clear that the scientific research as undertaken by the assessee was related to its business and the Assessing Officer has not doubted that there was an increase in the assessee s business. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee, which has rightly been allowed by the learned CIT(A) after appreciating the facts in right perspective. 7.2 No other point was raised or argued by either party, before us. 7.3 In view of the aforesaid discussions, we endorse the view taken by the learned CIT(A) and therefore, find no merit in the appeal preferred by the Department. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 246 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
Transfer Of Property, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... according to section 26 of the Income-tax Act as according to this section where the respective shares are defined and ascertainable then the share of each person should be included in his total income. In the present appeal, the share of the assessee and others are ascertainable on the basis of investment made by each of them. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was right in adopting their share in the rent according to investment and has correctly included the same in the income of the assessee. The assessee has not produced any contract contrary to the investment made above in the property and as such the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of exception under section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the DCIT(A) has wrongly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The impugned order is reversed and the order of the Assessing Officer is restored. . As a result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 245 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... R. against these evidences. Lastly, the ld. D.R. argued that the case of the revenue is covered by the authority of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the cases of Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 867 and Jagannath Prasad Kanhaiya Lal v. CIT 1988 171 ITR 596. We do not agree with the contention of the ld. D.R. In the authority reported in Ram Prasad Sharma s case the AAC refused to admit additional evidences but in this case the CIT(A) has admitted the evidence. Therefore, this authority will not be applicable in favour of the revenue. In Jagannath Prasad Kanhaiya Lals case the Tribunal refused to admit additional evidence. This is not the case before us. Both the authorities are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the revenue has failed to make out any case for interference in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 102 - SUPREME COURT
Whether another Division Bench or a Full Bench had jurisdiction or competence to review an earlier Division Bench division of that particular court?
Whether it could be treated as affirmed, for whatsoever reasons, by the Supreme Court on a plea that in view of the decision having been dealt with by the Supreme Court the decision of the High Court was no longer available to be reviewed?
Held that:- Under article 141 of the Constitution, it is the law declared by the Supreme Court, which is binding on all courts within the territory of India. Inasmuch as no law was declared by this court, the Full Bench was not precluded from going into the question of law arising for decision before it and in that context entering into and examining the correctness or otherwise of the law stated and either affirming or overruling the view of law taken therein leaving the operative part untouched so as to remain binding on the parties thereto.
Inasmuch as in the impugned judgment, the Full Bench has not adjudicated upon the issues arising for decision before it, we do not deem it .proper to enter into the merits of the controversy for the first time in exercise of the jurisdiction of this court under article 136 of the Constitution. We must have the benefit of the opinion of the Full Bench of the High Court as to the vires of the State legislation involved. Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. All the appeals shall stand restored before the Full Bench of the High Court and shall be heard and decided in accordance with law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT
Benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Whether the directors/officers are entitled to a refund?
Held that:- A reading of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order shows that where a declaration had been made in respect of a tax arrear and where in respect of the same matter a show-cause notice had also been issued to any other person, then the settlement in favour of the declarant has to be deemed to be full and final in respect of other persons on whom show-cause notices had been issued. It is settled law that when an appeal is pending there is no finality to the proceedings. The proceedings are then deemed to be continuing. Undoubtedly, at one place the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order seems to state that the show-cause notice should be pending adjudication. However, the same order also talks of the show-cause notice being in respect of the same matter on which the show-cause notice has been issued to the main declarant. Then the order provides that a settlement in favour of the declarant will be deemed to be full and final in respect of other persons also. This order has to be read as a whole.
Thus, even though the show-cause notice may have been adjudicated upon and an appeal is pending a party could still take the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and file a declaration. The object of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order is to give benefit of a settlement by the main party (i.e., the company in this case) to all other co-noticees.
Admittedly, in this case, all the officers have paid the amounts in pursuance of the declaration made by them under section 88. Even if they have paid the amounts under protest they are not entitled to refund. The directors/officers in Kerala would also not have been entitled to refund by virtue of section 93. However, section 93 does not seem to have been pointed out to the High Court of Kerala. As, pursuant to the order of the High Court of Kerala, they have received refund we do not direct that they should repay the amounts to the Revenue.
........
|
