|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 1893 Records
-
1979 (10) TMI 129
Issues: Appeal against addition of Rs. 12,000 sustained by the AAC based on low gross profit percentage compared to earlier years.
Analysis:
The assessee, a Registered firm deriving income from the sale of grass, reported sales of Rs. 4,20,536 and gross profit of Rs. 59,960 for the relevant year, reflecting a 12.25% profit margin. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) found the gross profit to be low compared to previous years and invoked section 145(1) due to the lack of material supporting the reported profit. The ITO noted the agricultural operations of the partners and the absence of extensive operations required for grass cultivation, leading to an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 15,000 considering past profit margins ranging from 29% to 30%. The ITO also highlighted the minimal withdrawals by the partners as a basis for the addition. The appeal before the AAC resulted in a partial relief of Rs. 3,000 only.
During the Tribunal proceedings, the assessee argued that the increased turnover for the year was due to purchasing grass from Gujarat, incurring demurrage charges of Rs. 23,000. The assessee contended that the ITO did not consider these circumstances adequately, leading to the ad-hoc addition. The assessee's Representative emphasized the significant wholesale sales portion and the impact of demurrage on profit margins, suggesting a nominal addition may be warranted. The Departmental Representative supported the AAC's decision.
After considering the submissions and the material, the Tribunal granted partial relief to the assessee. Noting the doubled sales and the demurrage payment, the Tribunal found the ITO had overlooked crucial aspects. Acknowledging the need for some addition, the Tribunal directed a reduced addition of Rs. 5,000, emphasizing the agricultural income of the partners as a factor in the decision. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, mitigating the additional tax burden.
-
1979 (10) TMI 126
Issues:
- Admissibility of appeals by the assessee for asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975-76.
- Refusal by CIT (Appeals) to admit the appeals due to payment of taxes.
- Appealability of refusal to admit an appeal.
- Merits of the case and exemption from the operation of s. 249(4) of the IT Act.
- Position of tax due and payments made by the assessee.
- Arguments regarding good and sufficient cause for default in non-payment.
- Consideration of subsequent events in deciding exemption.
- Decision on the appeals by the ITAT.
Analysis:
The judgment addressed the admissibility of appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975-76, which were initially not admitted by the CIT (Appeals) due to the assessee having paid the taxes due on the income returned at the time of filing the appeals. The departmental representative raised a preliminary objection regarding the appealability of the refusal to admit the appeals, contending that no appeal to the Tribunal is provided against such refusal. However, the ITAT disagreed, stating that a refusal to admit an appeal is an order under s. 250 of the IT Act, making it appealable to the Tribunal. The ITAT also referred to the principles of a Supreme Court judgment to support this interpretation.
On the merits of the case, the ITAT found that the CIT (Appeals) should have exempted the assessee from the operation of s. 249(4) of the Act, as the assessee had presented a case for exemption in the application before the Commr. (Appeals). The ITAT reviewed the tax amounts due and payments made by the assessee, noting that the Department had collected the tax due for the three assessment years by a certain date. The ITAT further analyzed the arguments regarding good and sufficient cause for default in non-payment, emphasizing that the proviso under s. 249(4) requires reasons for exemption rather than condonation of default.
Regarding subsequent events, the ITAT considered the payments made by the assessee after the appeal petitions were presented but before they were disposed of, through coercive proceedings under s. 226(3) of the IT Act. The ITAT concluded that the substantial payments made by the assessee, even before the appeal petitions were filed, constituted a good and sufficient reason for exemption from the operation of s. 249(4).
In the final decision, the ITAT allowed the three appeals of the assessee, canceling the order of the CIT (Appeals) refusing to admit the appeals for the three assessment years. The Commr. (Appeals) was directed to restore the appeals to his file and dispose of them on the merits of the case, based on the findings and reasoning provided by the ITAT.
-
1979 (10) TMI 125
Issues:
1. Appeal against the cancellation of an order enhancing interest under section 139(8) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the rectification order issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 154.
3. Computation of interest under section 139(8) for one month versus two months delay.
4. Treatment of advance tax paid in the calculation of interest under section 139(8).
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-D challenged the cancellation of an order enhancing interest under section 139(8) of the Income Tax Act by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (AAC). The original assessment order by the ITO calculated the tax due, deducted advance tax paid, and levied interest at 12% for one month. Subsequently, the ITO issued a rectification order increasing the interest for two months, leading to a further demand. The AAC canceled this rectification order, limiting the interest charged to the initial amount, prompting the Department's appeal.
2. The Department contended that the rectification was necessary due to mistakes in interest calculation and the treatment of advance tax payment. The assessee argued that the rectification notice was vague and lacked specificity regarding the nature of the mistake. The Tribunal found that the rectification was justified as the interest was initially calculated for one month instead of the actual two months delay. The absence of a response from the assessee did not preclude rectification for such an arithmetical error.
3. The Tribunal acknowledged the debatable issue regarding the treatment of advance tax paid in the interest calculation under section 139(8). While the ITO cannot rectify assessments on arguable points, the rectification for interest calculation based on the correct delay period was permissible. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed rectification for an additional amount, modifying the AAC's order and granting relief to the assessee by reducing the interest charged.
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the departmental appeal, confirming the rectification for the interest calculation error and adjusting the amount charged accordingly. The judgment clarified the permissible scope of rectification under section 154 and addressed the treatment of advance tax in interest computations under the Income Tax Act.
-
1979 (10) TMI 124
The appeal was regarding the allowance of surtax liability of Rs. 5,48,950 as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee from business. The ITAT Madras confirmed that surtax is not an admissible deduction under section 37 of the IT Act, based on previous Tribunal decisions. The assessee's appeal was dismissed. (Case: Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-D, Citation: 1979 (10) TMI 124 - ITAT MADRAS-D)
-
1979 (10) TMI 123
Issues:
1. Whether the salary paid to the Managing Director during his stay abroad qualifies for weighted deduction under section 35B.
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80QQ calculated at 20% of the gross income from the publishing business.
Analysis:
1. The first issue in this appeal pertains to the eligibility of the salary paid to the Managing Director during his foreign tour for weighted deduction under section 35B. The Revenue contended that such salary does not qualify for the deduction as it was incurred in India, regardless of the Managing Director's location. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a proportionate deduction based on a Tribunal decision, considering it as a reasonable basis for weighted deduction. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Managing Director's salary cannot be considered wholly and exclusively incurred for export promotion activities, thus denying the deduction, and allowed the Revenue's ground.
2. The second issue revolves around the deduction under section 80QQ concerning profits from the publishing business. The assessee claimed a deduction at 20% of the income from publishing, while the Income Tax Officer (ITO) restricted it to 20% of the net profit after set-off of trading losses. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to case law and held that the assessee was eligible for relief on the entire income from publishing, subject to limits under section 80A(2). The Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's contention, citing a similar case regarding section 80T, and concluded that the deduction under section 80QQ should be allowed on the gross income before set-off of losses, provided the total deductions under Chapter VI-A do not exceed the gross total income. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's ground, partially allowing the appeal.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Revenue's ground regarding the Managing Director's salary but rejected the Revenue's contention on the deduction under section 80QQ, allowing relief on the gross income from the publishing business.
-
1979 (10) TMI 122
Issues:
1. Treatment of machinery under installation for grant of relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Admissibility of relief under s. 80M on gross dividend received when gross total income is nil.
Issue 1: Treatment of machinery under installation for grant of relief under s. 80J:
The assessee contended that the value of machinery under installation should be considered part of the capital employed for the purpose of relief under s. 80J. The ITO had excluded the cost of machinery under installation in the computation of capital employed, a decision upheld by the AAC. However, the assessee relied on various High Court decisions, including Calcutta, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Bombay High Courts, which held that assets under installation should be included in the capital employed. The ITAT, following the precedent, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that machinery under installation should be treated as part of the capital employed under s. 80J.
Issue 2: Admissibility of relief under s. 80M on gross dividend when gross total income is nil:
The second issue revolved around the admissibility of relief under s. 80M on a gross dividend received from a company when the gross total income was nil due to overall losses. Initially, the ITO allowed the relief under s. 80M, but in a subsequent order, the ITO reversed the decision, stating that deduction under s. 80M is not admissible when the gross total income is nil. The AAC concurred with the ITO's view. The ITAT analyzed the relevant provisions of the IT Act, noting that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including s. 80M, cannot exceed the gross total income. Since the gross total income was a loss figure, the ITAT upheld the lower authorities' decision that the assessee was not entitled to any deduction under s. 80M due to the absence of positive gross total income.
In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling in favor of including machinery under installation in the capital employed for relief under s. 80J but denying the deduction under s. 80M due to a nil gross total income.
-
1979 (10) TMI 119
Issues: Disallowance under section 46 of the ED Act for estate valuation.
Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order of the AAC regarding the disallowance under section 46 of the ED Act for the estate of a deceased individual. The deceased had a current account with his wife, and the Asstt. CED disallowed a deduction claimed by the Accountable Person based on certain findings.
2. The Asstt. CED, on appeal, noted the transactions in the current account between the deceased and his wife over several years. He concluded that the deceased had a running account with his wife, indicating no direct correlation between the amount gifted by the deceased and the outstanding liability. Consequently, he deleted the addition under section 46.
3. The Revenue contended that the mere inclusion of property gifted by the deceased in the resources of the creditor triggers section 46, citing relevant court decisions. They argued that the addition made by the Asstt. CED should be restored.
4. The Accountable Person argued that the amount gifted in 1959 was utilized by the wife for her money lending business, and subsequent advances were from her own sources, not the gifted amount. It was emphasized that the wife had independent income and the gifted amount was not directly linked to the subsequent transactions.
5. The Tribunal analyzed sections 44 and 46 of the ED Act, emphasizing the requirement of a direct nexus between the property derived from the deceased and the outstanding debt. It was observed that the gifted amount was withdrawn by the wife, and the liability arose later, indicating no direct connection between the gift and the debt.
6. Further, the Tribunal examined the application of sub-section (a) and (b) of section 46, highlighting the necessity of a clear nexus between the gift and the incurring of the debt. The Tribunal found that no such connection existed in this case, as evidenced by the wife's independent funds and the absence of intention to use the gift for advancing amounts to her husband.
7. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the order of the AAC based on the lack of applicability of section 46 to the facts of the case. The decision was grounded in the absence of a direct nexus between the gifted amount and the subsequent debt, leading to the conclusion that neither sub-section (a) nor (b) of section 46 applied in this scenario.
-
1979 (10) TMI 118
The judgment relates to a gift tax appeal for the assessment year 1974-75 involving transfer of property to minor daughters. The appeal was allowed as the transfer was considered a gift due to lack of consideration in money or monies worth, as per Madras High Court rulings. The appellate order was set aside, and the gift-tax assessment was restored, while the cross objection by the assessee was dismissed. (Case: Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-C, Citation: 1979 (10) TMI 118 - ITAT MADRAS-C)
-
1979 (10) TMI 115
The ITAT MADRAS-B upheld the cancellation of a penalty imposed on an assessee for concealing income related to a house purchased in the name of the assessee's wife. The Tribunal found that the addition to the income was based on a lack of conclusive evidence rather than intentional concealment. The departmental appeal was dismissed. (Case Citation: 1979 (10) TMI 115 - ITAT MADRAS-B)
-
1979 (10) TMI 112
Issues:
1. Charging of interest under section 217(1A) in reassessment.
2. Validity of filing acquisition estimate under section 212(3A) in relation to advance tax payment.
3. Maintainability of appeal against the charging of interest.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was against a reassessment where interest under section 217(1A) was levied. The original assessment for the year 1972-73 determined the total income at Rs. 1,53,320. However, upon reopening the assessment, the total income was redetermined at Rs. 1,59,140, and interest under section 217(1A) was charged. The assessee appealed against the disallowances and the charging of interest. The Appellate Authority confirmed the disallowances and the levy of interest, leading to a further appeal specifically challenging the levy of interest under section 217(1A).
2. The crux of the issue was whether the assessee failed to file a valid acquisition estimate under section 212(3A) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Authority were of the view that the assessee did not file a valid estimate as required under section 212(3A), leading to the imposition of interest under section 217(1A). The Revenue contended that the imposition of interest was justified based on the failure to file a valid estimate.
3. The Tribunal considered two possible views regarding the filing of acquisition estimates and the payment of advance tax. The Revenue advocated for a technical view that an estimate should fall under section 212(3A) only if the advance tax demanded is exceeded by the estimated income. However, the Tribunal favored the view that an estimate can be filed whenever the current income results in paying advance tax over and above the demanded amount. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of the provisions was to collect tax in advance, and the filing of estimates was a procedural aspect. Therefore, in this case, the Tribunal held that the charging of interest under section 217(1A) was not justified as the facts did not align with the requirements of the section.
4. Regarding the maintainability of the appeal against the charging of interest, the Revenue objected, citing precedents. However, the Tribunal held that the appeal was maintainable, especially since it was against the order of the Appellate Authority and the grounds related to the charging of interest were incidental. The Tribunal concluded that the charging of interest under section 217(1A) was not justified based on the facts of the case and proceeded to delete the addition to the tax demand.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and deleting the addition to the tax demand related to the charging of interest under section 217(1A).
-
1979 (10) TMI 110
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 6,38,250 was allowed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) without making necessary enquiries.
2. Whether the CIT erred in holding that the ITO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
3. Whether the impugned order was without jurisdiction and contrary to the material on record.
4. Whether the impugned order was bad in law for being passed without giving an opportunity of being heard.
5. Whether the notice dated 20th August 1978 was vague and without material, thus bad in law.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Enquiry by ITO:
The assessee, a partnership firm dealing in country liquor, claimed Rs. 6,38,250 as "security forfeited a/c" in its profit and loss account. The ITO allowed this claim based on a detailed letter dated 16th August 1976 from the assessee, explaining the circumstances under which the amount had to be paid. The letter and a certificate from the Excise Authorities detailing the monthly payments were part of the assessment records. Despite this, the CIT set aside the assessment order, stating that the ITO had not made proper enquiries regarding the nature of the amount and its admissibility under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the ITO had sufficient material before him and had indeed made the necessary enquiries, thus the CIT's assertion was incorrect.
2. Erroneous and Prejudicial to Revenue:
The CIT concluded that the ITO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because the ITO allegedly allowed the claim without proper enquiry. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that the ITO had considered the detailed letter from the assessee and the certificate from the Excise Authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of a detailed discussion in the assessment order does not imply a lack of enquiry. Hence, the Tribunal held that the CIT's conclusion was unfounded and the ITO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.
3. Jurisdiction and Material on Record:
The Tribunal observed that the CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on an audit objection, which was not detailed in the CIT's order. The Tribunal held that the ITO had sufficient material on record to ascertain the nature of the amount and its admissibility. Therefore, the CIT's order was without jurisdiction as the ITO's assessment was based on adequate enquiry and material.
4. Opportunity of Being Heard:
The assessee argued that the impugned order was passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal noted that the CIT had issued a show-cause notice served on the assessee on 21st August, with the hearing initially fixed for 26th August but advanced to 25th August. The assessee's request for adjournment was denied, and the CIT passed the order on 25th August. The Tribunal found this approach improper, emphasizing that substantial issues should not be decided without considering the material on record and without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.
5. Vagueness of Notice:
The assessee contended that the notice dated 20th August 1978 was vague and without material, thus bad in law. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as it found the CIT's order invalid on other substantial grounds.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT erred in setting aside the ITO's assessment order. The ITO had made necessary enquiries and had sufficient material to allow the assessee's claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT should have provided concrete advice or collected additional material if deemed necessary, rather than passing an order without proper consideration and opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the CIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
-
1979 (10) TMI 109
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and genuineness of the firm's registration.
2. Whether the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
3. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)'s order.
4. Consideration of evidence and material on record by the CIT.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity and Genuineness of the Firm's Registration:
The appellant, a partnership firm, was assessed for the year 1976-77, with the relevant previous year being 1975-76. The firm, consisting of 19 partners, was established on April 1, 1975, with a partnership deed drawn on November 26, 1975. Following the death of one partner on June 6, 1975, a revised partnership deed was executed on July 20, 1975. The firm filed for registration on March 29, 1976. The ITO granted registration under section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after verifying the distribution of profits and the genuineness of the firm. However, the CIT set aside the ITO's order, questioning the validity of the firm's constitution and the registration process.
2. Whether the Order of the ITO was Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue:
The CIT found that the ITO granted registration without proper inquiries into the constitution of M/s. Ramsarandas & Co. The CIT argued that under the Rajasthan Excise Laws, the business could not be carried on by anyone other than the licensee unless transferred with prior approval. The CIT issued a notice under section 263, concluding that the ITO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal, however, found that the ITO had all necessary information, including the partnership deed and certificates from the Excise Department, showing the firm's constitution and the death of a partner. The Tribunal held that the ITO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.
3. Jurisdiction and Procedural Propriety of the CIT's Order:
The Tribunal emphasized that the power under section 263 is quasi-judicial, requiring a speaking order with reasons. The CIT must scrutinize all relevant facts and provide a well-considered finding. The CIT's order was found lacking in this regard, as it did not consider the material on record and the assessee's objections. The Tribunal noted that the CIT received the record on August 20, 1978, and passed the order on August 25, 1978, without considering the assessee's written reply submitted on August 24, 1978. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's order was procedurally improper and factually incorrect.
4. Consideration of Evidence and Material on Record by the CIT:
The Tribunal found that the CIT overlooked crucial evidence, including letters and certificates from the Excise Department indicating the firm's constitution and the partners' names. The ITO had verified the firm's genuineness, profit distribution, and compliance with the partnership deed. The Tribunal noted that the CIT's reliance on a single certificate dated July 19, 1976, was misplaced, as other documents on record showed the correct constitution of the firm. The Tribunal held that the CIT's order was factually incorrect and legally improper, as it did not consider all relevant material.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the firm was validly constituted, fulfilled all legal requirements for registration, and the ITO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue. The CIT's order was set aside, and the ITO's order was restored. The appeal succeeded.
-
1979 (10) TMI 108
Issues:
Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act based on estimated income without proper accounting records. Jurisdiction of the IAC to impose penalty post-amendment. Assessment of income based on estimate and lack of concrete evidence. Burden of proof on the assessee to show absence of fraud or neglect in income reporting.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against a penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the appellant, a bookseller and publisher, under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by the IAC. The assessment was completed under section 144, estimating the total income at Rs. 47,457, including income from a connected firm. The appellant's contention was that the assessment was ex parte and based on conjectures without a proper basis. The IAC emphasized that the burden was on the assessee to prove the absence of fraud or neglect in income reporting, citing relevant case laws like CIT vs. Kedarnath Ramnath. The IAC considered the disproportion between the appellant's capital and past income, leading to the imposition of the penalty.
The jurisdiction of the IAC to impose the penalty was challenged based on the amendment by the Taxation Laws Act, 1975. However, it was held that the IAC had the authority to impose the penalty as the return was filed before the amendment came into effect. The assessment of income at Rs. 25,000 was upheld by the Bench due to the lack of proper accounting records and the history of similar estimates in previous years. The Bench noted that the estimate was not excessive considering past assessments and the nature of the appellant's business involving potentially obsolete stock.
The burden of proof regarding the absence of fraud or neglect in income reporting was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal highlighted the need for the Revenue to establish willful or gross neglect on the part of the assessee to justify the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Various case laws were referenced to emphasize the requirement for concrete evidence of intentional misreporting or concealment of income. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the penalty imposed on the assessee was not justified based on the circumstances and relevant legal precedents, leading to the deletion of the penalty.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of meeting the burden of proof in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and the necessity of concrete evidence to establish willful neglect or fraud in income reporting. The penalty imposed on the assessee was deemed unjustified and subsequently deleted.
-
1979 (10) TMI 107
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Gauhati heard two appeals by different assessees regarding the inclusion of interest income received by minors in taxable income. The AAC directed the ITO not to include the interest income, citing lack of justification under s. 64(i)(iii) of the Act. The AAC's decision was upheld as no material linked the partnership benefits with the minors' income. Both appeals were dismissed. (Case: 1979 (10) TMI 107 - ITAT Gauhati)
-
1979 (10) TMI 106
Issues:
Penalty under section 273(C) of the IT Act imposed on the assessee for failure to furnish an estimate of advance tax under section 212(3A) of the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the AAC sustaining a penalty imposed by the ITO under section 273(C) of the IT Act, 1961, at a reduced figure of Rs. 2,220. The facts leading to the appeal include the assessee being served an order under section 210 of the Act to pay advance tax, filing an estimate under section 212(1) showing tax payable, and subsequently declaring a total income of Rs. 77,140, leading to a tax demand of Rs. 46,542 on regular assessment.
2. The ITO opined that the assessee failed to comply with the provisions of section 212(3A) by not submitting an estimate of income despite declaring enhanced income. The ITO issued a notice under section 274 read with section 273(c) calling for a penalty for failure to furnish the advance tax estimate. The assessee claimed ignorance of the law and unexpected profits from a partnership firm as reasons for non-compliance.
3. The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,550 under section 273(c), which was reduced to Rs. 2,220 by the AAC. The assessee contended that filing an estimate under section 212(1) should suffice and that penalty under section 273(c) was not warranted, especially since a penalty under section 273(a) was already imposed for furnishing an untrue estimate.
4. The Tribunal considered the submissions and observed that the assessee had indeed filed an estimate under section 212(1) but was penalized under section 273(a) for an untrue estimate. Given this, the Tribunal held that penalizing the assessee again under section 273(c) for failure to furnish another estimate was unjustified. The Tribunal quashed the orders imposing and sustaining the penalty, ruling in favor of the assessee.
5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, holding that the penalties imposed under section 273(c) were unwarranted due to the assessee already being penalized under section 273(a) for furnishing an untrue estimate.
-
1979 (10) TMI 105
The appeal by the ITO and Cross Objection by the assessee were related to the order of the ITO requiring the assessee to pay a compulsory deposit, which the assessee, over 70 years of age, did not pay. The AAC held that the assessee was not required to make the deposit. The Department contested the appeal, arguing that no appeal lay against the ITO's order, but the AAC's decision was upheld as the scheme allowed for appeal. The Departmental appeal was dismissed, and the cross objection was also dismissed.
-
1979 (10) TMI 104
The case involves M/s Northeren Jute Traders appealing for the assessment year 1974-75. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Calcutta-C ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting additions made to the gross profit. However, a portion of car expenses disallowed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was upheld by the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC), but the ITAT reduced the disallowance to 1/5th. The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed.
-
1979 (10) TMI 103
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT CALCUTTA-C. The assessee, M/s. Techno Pipe works Engg. Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., claimed deduction under s. 80J of the Act based on the inclusion of secured loans as part of capital. The ITO initially rejected this claim, but the AAC directed the ITO to compute the deduction following a decision of the Calcutta High Court. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, stating that the capital for s. 80J relief was correctly computed as per the High Court's decision in Century Enka Ltd. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
-
1979 (10) TMI 102
Issues:
1. Denial of relief under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act to the assessee.
2. Interpretation of the term "industrial undertaking" under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act.
3. Whether the assets must belong to the firm directly for claiming relief under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the AAC denying relief under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act. The firm, in which the assessee was a partner, was engaged in buying grey cloth and selling it after processing by another company. The WTO held that relief under s. 5(1)(xxxii) was only available if the assets used for manufacturing and processing belonged to the firm directly. The AAC upheld the denial of relief, stating that the firm was not directly involved in manufacturing or processing activities. The Tribunal was tasked with determining the eligibility of the assessee for relief under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act.
2. The Tribunal considered the definition of "industrial undertaking" under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act. It was established that the relief was available for assets forming part of an industrial undertaking owned by the firm in which the assessee was a partner. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws, including the Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court decisions, to support the interpretation that the firm did not need to directly manufacture the processed cloth to qualify as an industrial undertaking. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's argument that buying grey cloth and selling it after processing constituted manufacturing activity, as supported by legal precedents.
3. The key issue was whether the assets used for manufacturing and processing needed to be owned directly by the firm for claiming relief under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act. The Tribunal held that it was sufficient if the assets were owned by the firm conducting the business, and direct ownership by the assessee was not mandatory. The Tribunal emphasized that the capital of the firm constituted the assets in question for claiming relief. The Tribunal's decision was based on the clear provisions of s. 5(1)(xxxii) and the interpretation provided by previous court judgments, supporting the assessee's entitlement to relief despite not owning the assets directly.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal, ITAT BOMBAY-D, allowed the assessee's appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee's eligibility for relief under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act. The Tribunal clarified that ownership of assets by the firm, rather than the assessee directly, sufficed for claiming relief under the provision. The decision was supported by legal precedents and interpretations of the term "industrial undertaking" as per relevant court judgments.
-
1979 (10) TMI 101
Issues:
1. Whether the provisions of s. 144B are applicable to the assessment for the asst. yr. 1974-75.
2. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,30,000 received by the assessee trust should be included in the total income as per s. 12.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an appeal and a cross objection related to the same assessment for the asst. yr. 1974-75. The main issue is whether the provisions of s. 144B are applicable to the assessment for this year. The assessee contended that the assessment was barred by the period of limitation as s. 144B, introduced in 1976, was not applicable to the assessment year in question. However, the Tribunal held that procedural provisions like s. 144B have retrospective operation on pending matters, rejecting the assessee's contention and allowing the assessment to proceed.
2. The second issue pertains to whether a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 received by the assessee trust should be included in the total income under s. 12. The Department argued that since the trust incurred expenditure without any resources other than the contributions received, the contributions did not form part of the trust corpus. However, the Tribunal found that there were no entries or material showing the expenditure was drawn from the trust fund, concluding that the contributions indeed formed part of the trust corpus. The Tribunal relied on the exception in s. 12 for contributions made with a specific direction to form part of the corpus, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.
3. The judgment also mentions that the assessee's representative referenced a previous order of the Tribunal to support the argument that even if there was a breach of trust in incurring expenditure from the trust fund, the case would still fall within the exception mentioned in s. 12. The Department did not present a specific argument on this point, and the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention based on the referenced order.
4. Ultimately, after considering all relevant facts, submissions, and orders, the Tribunal dismissed both the Department's appeal and the assessee's cross objection. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues raised during the assessment proceedings and the arguments presented by both sides, culminating in the Tribunal's decision to uphold the assessee's position regarding the treatment of the contributions received by the trust.
............
|
9911796707
