|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 2144 Records
-
1981 (12) TMI 81
The appeal was regarding addition to the trading account made by the ITO and confirmed by the AAC. The ITO estimated sales at Rs. 4,90,000 with a G.P. of 12.5% due to lack of proper verification. The AAC upheld the ITO's order. The ITAT found no valid grounds for the addition and deleted it. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 80
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore allowed the appeals by the assessee regarding disallowance of messing expenses treated as entertainment expenses by the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal held that the expenses were reasonable and should be allowed in full, considering the nature of the assessee's business. The appeals were allowed in full. (Case citation: 1981 (12) TMI 80 - ITAT INDORE)
-
1981 (12) TMI 79
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of partial partition under Hindu law.
2. Competence of a minor to consent to partition.
3. Applicability of the decision in CIT vs. Seth Gopaldas (HUF).
4. Authority of the father to effect partial partition without sons' consent.
5. Whether the order passed by the ITO under Section 171 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Partial Partition under Hindu Law:
The assessee claimed a partial partition of the business capital of the HUF effective from 4th Nov., 1975. The ITO, after conducting necessary inquiries and reviewing the evidence, accepted the claim and passed an order under Section 171 of the IT Act on 20th Feb., 1979. The CIT, however, found the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, citing the decision in CIT vs. Seth Gopaldas (HUF). The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Kalyani Narayanan & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 1173 ruled that a father has the right to effect partial partition among himself and his sons without their consent, thus supporting the ITO's order.
2. Competence of a Minor to Consent to Partition:
The CIT argued that the minor son, Pankaj Kumar, was not legally competent to consent to the partial partition. However, the assessee contended that the partition was consented to by the guardian on behalf of the minor. The Tribunal observed that the partition deed was signed by the Karta and his wife on behalf of their minor son, and the partition was duly acted upon and bona fide.
3. Applicability of the Decision in CIT vs. Seth Gopaldas (HUF):
The CIT relied on the decision in CIT vs. Seth Gopaldas (HUF) to argue that the ITO's order was erroneous. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Seth Gopaldas, noting that in Seth Gopaldas, the partition was made without the consent of the sons and did not include the entire family properties. In contrast, in the present case, the partition was consented to by the guardian on behalf of the minor, and relevant entries were made in the books of account.
4. Authority of the Father to Effect Partial Partition without Sons' Consent:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyani Narayanan & Ors. and other High Court rulings, which upheld the father's authority to effect partial partition among himself, his wife, and minor sons without their consent. The Tribunal concluded that the father's authority to make partial partition was valid under Hindu law.
5. Whether the Order Passed by the ITO under Section 171 was Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interest of Revenue:
The Tribunal examined the CIT's contention that the ITO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal found that the ITO's order was based on a thorough inquiry and was consistent with the latest Supreme Court decision in Kalyani Narayanan & Ors., which supported the validity of the partial partition. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the ITO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue and cancelled the CIT's order under Section 263.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the order passed by the ITO under Section 171 was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from CIT vs. Seth Gopaldas (HUF) and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyani Narayanan & Ors. to validate the partial partition effected by the father.
-
1981 (12) TMI 78
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore decided on the valuation of property for wealth-tax purposes. The appeal was partly allowed, with the multiple of 12 1/2 times of capitalization being deemed reasonable instead of the original 16.178 multiple. The first three grounds of appeal were dismissed as they were not pressed during the hearing. The completed portion of the building was rented out.
-
1981 (12) TMI 77
Issues:
Appeal against penalty order u/s 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for delay in filing return for the asst. yr. 1973-74.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the AAC Wealth-tax confirming the penalty imposed by the WTO under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for a delay of 22 months in filing the return for the assessment year 1973-74. The WTO noted that the return could have been filed by 15th August, 1973, but was actually filed on 4th July, 1975. The penalty of Rs. 1,507 was imposed by the WTO, which was later confirmed by the AAC.
2. The assessee contended that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, as she believed her wealth was below the taxable limit due to personal use ornaments not being included. The return was filed in compliance with a notice issued by the WTO u/s 17, received on 2nd July, 1975. The assessee argued that the penalty was erroneously imposed without appreciating the facts of the case and that the AAC erred in confirming it.
3. Upon review, it was found that the returned wealth was marginal, and the return was filed in compliance with the notice issued by the WTO u/s 17. The AAC's finding that the return for the previous year was filed voluntarily on 4th July, 1975, was incorrect as it was filed in response to a notice issued by the WTO u/s 17 for that year as well.
4. Considering the facts and submissions, it was concluded that there was no justification for the penalty imposition. The penalty orders sustained by the AAC were canceled, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed in full.
In conclusion, the appellate tribunal found in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty imposed for the delay in filing the wealth tax return for the assessment year 1973-74, as there was a reasonable cause for the delay and the return was filed in compliance with the notice issued by the tax authorities.
-
1981 (12) TMI 76
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing Form No. 11.
2. Validity of the partnership firm on the merits.
3. Minor partner's status and its impact on the firm's legality.
4. Examination of Subba Rao and the genuineness of the partnership.
5. Condemnation of delay in filing the application for registration.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing Form No. 11:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) noted that the application in Form No. 11 was delayed, as it should have been filed by 31st March 1977. The assessee explained that Form 12 was initially filed for the continuation of registration, and Form 11 was subsequently filed after the registration for the earlier year was not finalized. The ITO rejected the application as barred by limitation, stating there was no valid excuse for the delay.
2. Validity of the Partnership Firm on the Merits:
The ITO concluded that the firm was not entitled to registration on merits. The partnership was constituted on 1st April 1975, taking over the business previously carried on by Chalapathi Rao individually. Since Subba Rao was a minor on 1st April 1975, the ITO stated that no valid partnership could exist between an adult and a minor, rendering the firm invalid and ineligible for registration.
3. Minor Partner's Status and Its Impact on the Firm's Legality:
The ITO emphasized that Subba Rao was a minor on 1st April 1975, and thus, the partnership was ab initio void. Despite Subba Rao attaining majority by the date of the partnership deed's execution on 21st February 1976, the ITO maintained that the firm was invalid from inception. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) countered this by stating that the right to receive profits arose only at the end of the financial year when Subba Rao had attained majority, making the contract between the partners valid.
4. Examination of Subba Rao and the Genuineness of the Partnership:
Subba Rao was examined by the ITO, who concluded that Subba Rao was nominally introduced as a partner and was not a genuine partner, acting as a benamidar for his father. The AAC disagreed, stating there was no material to hold that Subba Rao was a benamidar. The AAC noted that Subba Rao's lack of awareness about the profits did not indicate he was a dummy partner, and directed the grant of registration.
5. Condemnation of Delay in Filing the Application for Registration:
The AAC considered the delay in filing Form No. 11 and upheld the assessee's contention that the delay should be condoned. The AAC noted that the assessee had manifested an intention to seek registration by filing Form 12 for the current year and that the delay was due to technical reasons. The AAC directed that the delay be condoned and the application for registration be considered on merits.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to grant registration to the assessee firm for the assessment year 1977-78. It concluded that the partnership was valid as of 21st February 1976, when both partners were adults, and the delay in filing Form No. 11 should be condoned. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming that Subba Rao was a genuine partner and not a benamidar for his father. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the partnership deed and upheld the AAC's order.
-
1981 (12) TMI 75
Issues:
1. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income.
2. Source of funds for the acquisition of property by the assessee's wife.
3. Addition of unaccounted expenses for marriage and domestic expenditures.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad-A arose from an order under section 271(1)(c) passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) levying a penalty of Rs. 19,500 for the assessment year 1972-73. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [AAC] had reduced the penalty by Rs. 8,500. The assessee challenged the AAC's decision to sustain a penalty of Rs. 11,000, while the revenue contended that the penalty should have been sustained to the extent of Rs. 1,000 for marriage expenses.
2. The primary issue revolved around the source of funds for the purchase of land by the assessee's wife. The ITO questioned the explanation provided by the assessee and his wife regarding the accumulation of funds, considering it improbable. The ITO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) based on the findings during the assessment. The AAC upheld the penalty, deeming the explanation for the source of funds as far-fetched.
3. Apart from the land purchase issue, other additions were made by the ITO, including unaccounted expenses for marriage and domestic expenditures. The ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 8,500 for these additions. The AAC, however, opined that no penalty could be imposed for concealment of income related to these expenses.
4. The assessee argued that the ITO failed to establish the necessary ingredients under section 271(1)(c) for levying a penalty. The assessee maintained that the property was purchased solely by his wife, supported by their statements. The assessee contended that there was no basis for the penalty.
5. The Department asserted that the assessee did not respond to the penalty notice, shifting the onus onto the assessee. It was argued that the ITO had provided sufficient evidence to justify the penalty under section 271(1)(c), emphasizing the implausibility of the assessee's explanations and the assessment under section 68.
6. The disagreement extended to the penalty on unaccounted marriage and domestic expenses. The Department contended that since the assessee admitted to incurring Rs. 1,000 for the daughter's marriage, a penalty should be sustained. The assessee argued that the expenses were covered by withdrawals made by both the assessee and his sons in the business.
7. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the ITO must present positive evidence of income concealment to levy a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found the explanation regarding the land purchase plausible, noting the lack of evidence to refute it, and canceled the penalty of Rs. 11,000.
8. Regarding the Rs. 1,000 expense for the daughter's marriage, the Tribunal sided with the assessee, stating that the expense could have been covered by accounted funds. The AAC's decision to cancel the penalty of Rs. 8,500, including the Rs. 1,000, was deemed justified.
9. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, leading to the cancellation of the penalties imposed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 74
Issues:
1. Challenge to CIT (A) orders for asst. yr. 1975-76 regarding weighted deduction under s. 35-B.
2. Disallowance of weighted deduction on certain items.
3. Disallowance of other export expenses.
4. Claim of meeting and conference expenses.
5. Partial deduction allowed by CIT on specified items.
6. Allocation of expenses and deduction under s. 35-B.
7. Addition of director's travelling expenses.
8. Disallowance of certain delegation expenses.
9. Consideration of expenses on foreign buyers.
10. Final decision on appeals.
Analysis:
1. The assessee contested CIT (A) orders for asst. yr. 1975-76 concerning weighted deduction under s. 35-B. The Revenue also filed appeals challenging the weighted deductions allowed by CIT (A), which were disposed of together.
2. Certain items like shipping charges, packing, forwarding, insurance charges, and travelling expenses within India were disallowed for weighted deduction under s. 35-B based on Special Bench decisions, confirming the disallowances.
3. Disallowance of other export expenses was upheld for expenses related to certificates, letters of credit, etc., in line with the Special Bench decision in J.H. & Co.
4. Meeting and conference expenses were partially allowed for foreign delegations, with a directive to allocate weighted deduction at 50% of the total claim for both years.
5. CIT allocated and allowed partial deductions on items like office rent, staff salaries, and director's remuneration based on purchase and sales activities, following the Special Bench decision in M/s J.H. & Co.
6. Allocation of expenses for deduction under s. 35-B was adjusted to 90% of 50% of total expenses for specified items, while allocations for postage, telegrams, and printing were deemed fair and confirmed.
7. Addition of director's travelling expenses was not pressed, leaving no other grounds for consideration in the appeals.
8. Disallowance of certain delegation expenses was challenged but upheld based on the self-contained provision of s. 35-B and Special Bench decisions.
9. Expenses on foreign buyers were considered in line with the Special Bench decision in M/S. J.H. & Co., leading to confirmation of CIT (A) orders on this point.
10. The final decision resulted in partial allowance of the assessee's appeals and dismissal of the Revenue's appeals, concluding the matter.
-
1981 (12) TMI 73
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount disclosed by the assessee under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, should be excluded from the income for purposes of computing chargeable profits for levying surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Contention of the Revenue:
The primary contention of the revenue was that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the ITO to exclude Rs. 2,50,000, disclosed by the assessee under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, from the total income of Rs. 15,96,160 for the purpose of computing chargeable profits for surtax. The revenue argued that section 8 of the Voluntary Disclosure Act, which the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon, was not applicable to disclosures made under section 14 of the Act, which was the case here. The revenue emphasized that section 8 applies only to disclosures under section 3, and the amount disclosed under section 14 should be included in the total income for surtax purposes.
2. Assessee's Argument:
The assessee contended that section 8 of the Voluntary Disclosure Act did not explicitly exclude declarations under section 14 from its scope. The assessee argued that both section 3 and section 14 disclosures are termed "voluntary disclosures" in the prescribed forms, and hence, the disclosed amount should be treated as "voluntarily disclosed income" under section 8. The assessee further argued that ambiguities in tax laws should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer, as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192.
3. Analysis and Findings:
The Tribunal analyzed the definitions and provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure Act. It noted that the term "voluntarily disclosed income" is defined in section 3 and pertains to income declared under section 3(1). Section 8, which provides that voluntarily disclosed income shall not be included in the total income for surtax purposes, specifically applies to income declared under section 3. The Tribunal pointed out that section 14 disclosures are made under different circumstances, often following a raid, and are not covered by the same immunities as section 3 disclosures. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent was clear in distinguishing between the two types of disclosures, and the broader immunities of section 8 were not meant for section 14 disclosures.
4. Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) was incorrect in excluding the amount disclosed under section 14 from the assessee's total income for surtax purposes. The Tribunal restored the ITO's order, which included the disclosed amount in the total income.
Judgment:
The appeal filed by the revenue was allowed, and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was set aside. The Tribunal restored the ITO's order, thereby including the Rs. 2,50,000 disclosed under section 14 in the total income for the purpose of computing chargeable profits for surtax.
-
1981 (12) TMI 72
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment.
2. Timeliness of the assessment.
3. Issuance of demand notices.
4. Annulment of the assessment by the AAC.
5. Service of notice to all legal heirs.
6. Application of mind by the WTO.
7. Assessment figures under section 16(5).
8. Additional grounds of appeal.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Assessment:
The appellant argued that the assessment made was invalid and bad in law. This issue revolves around whether the assessments were framed in accordance with the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Tribunal concluded that the assessments were not in accordance with the law, specifically section 3 read with section 19A, as they were not framed on the executor of the Will of the deceased but on the legal heirs, which constitutes an illegality rather than a procedural irregularity.
2. Timeliness of the Assessment:
The appellant contended that there was no evidence that the assessment was made on the date mentioned in the assessment order and suggested that the assessment had become time-barred. The Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence from the department to counter this claim, thereby supporting the appellant's argument that the assessments were not timely.
3. Issuance of Demand Notices:
The appellant claimed there was no evidence that demand notices were issued on 24-3-1979. The Tribunal did not find any substantial evidence from the department to prove the issuance of demand notices on the specified date, thus supporting the appellant's claim.
4. Annulment of the Assessment by the AAC:
The AAC had set aside the assessments for all the assessment years involved and directed the WTO to make assessments de novo. The Tribunal agreed with the AAC's decision, emphasizing that the assessments were not framed in accordance with the law, thus justifying their annulment.
5. Service of Notice to All Legal Heirs:
The appellant argued that the notice under section 16(2) was not served on all legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal noted that the deceased had left a Will appointing an executor, and the assessments should have been framed on this executor. The failure to serve notice to all legal heirs, especially in light of the existence of an executor, was deemed a significant oversight.
6. Application of Mind by the WTO:
The appellant claimed that the WTO failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case and did not pass a speaking order. The Tribunal found that the assessments were not made in accordance with the legal requirements, indicating a lack of due consideration by the WTO.
7. Assessment Figures under Section 16(5):
The appellant argued that the assessment figures were arbitrarily high without any basis or jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue as the assessments were annulled on broader legal grounds.
8. Additional Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant reserved the right to amend or file any additional grounds of appeal. The Tribunal found these grounds to be of academic interest and did not address them in detail, as the primary issues had already led to the annulment of the assessments.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessments were not made in accordance with the law and annulled them. The impugned order of the AAC was ratified to the extent that the assessments were set aside. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessments should have been framed on the executor of the Will of the deceased, not on the legal heirs, thus constituting an illegality that vitiated the assessments. Other grounds raised by the appellant were deemed infructuous in light of the annulment.
-
1981 (12) TMI 71
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of Rs. 2,29,990 as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii).
2. Allowability of Rs. 2,29,990 as a trading loss under section 28(i).
3. Nature of advances made to Gokal Chand Jagan Nath Private Limited.
4. Timing of the loss recognition.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allowability of Rs. 2,29,990 as a Bad Debt:
The assessee, a registered firm, claimed Rs. 2,29,990 as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii). The ITO disallowed this claim on the grounds that:
(i) The assessee did not possess a money lending license.
(ii) The partners of the assessee-firm and the shareholders of the debtor company were common.
(iii) The claim had not become time-barred in the relevant year.
The AAC upheld the ITO's decision, and there was no appeal by the assessee against this finding.
2. Allowability of Rs. 2,29,990 as a Trading Loss:
The assessee alternatively claimed the amount as a trading loss under section 28(i). The AAC allowed this claim, relying on the judgments in the cases of B.D. Bharucha and T.J. Lalvani. However, the revenue contested this decision.
The Tribunal found that the AAC erred in allowing the loss as a trading loss. It was noted that the partners of the assessee-firm and the shareholders of the debtor company were the same individuals. By lifting the corporate veil, it was evident that the partners had advanced money to themselves, and thus, the loss could not be allowed as a trading loss.
3. Nature of Advances Made to Gokal Chand Jagan Nath Private Limited:
The Tribunal examined whether the advances were made in the course of the assessee's business or were capital in nature. It was found that:
- The advances were made even before the incorporation of the company.
- A significant amount was transferred to the share capital account.
- The advances were used for setting up a factory, indicating a capital nature.
The Tribunal concluded that the advances were not made for facilitating the purchase of goods but for establishing a factory, which provided an enduring benefit. Therefore, the advances were capital in nature and not incidental to the assessee's business.
4. Timing of the Loss Recognition:
The Tribunal also considered whether the loss pertained to the relevant year. It was noted that:
- The factory was sold in 1967.
- A substantial repayment was made in the year ending 31-3-1968.
- The assessee did not write off the amount earlier, expecting recovery from the partners.
The Tribunal found that no recovery proceedings were initiated against the company, and the limitation period for recovery had not expired. Therefore, it could not be concluded that the loss became irrecoverable in the relevant year.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal reversed the AAC's order and held that the sum of Rs. 2,29,990 was not a trading loss pertaining to the relevant year. The appeal by the revenue was allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 70
Issues:
1. Taxability of commission on net profits in the year of accrual.
2. Determination of when commission becomes due for assessment.
3. Impact of audit completion on determining net profits.
4. Consideration of accounting basis for commission income assessment.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolves around the taxability of the commission on net profits in the year of accrual. The dispute arose regarding whether the commission received by the assessees from a company should be assessed in the year it was accrued or in the subsequent year. The assessees argued that the commission should be assessed in the following year as it was receivable only after the company's accounts were finalized. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) contended that the commission became part of the salary and should be assessed on a due basis in the year of accrual. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the ITO's decision, stating that the profits had accrued by the end of the company's accounting year, regardless of the actual payment date. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and held that the commission should be assessed in the next year on a receipt basis, as claimed by the assessees.
Issue 2: The crux of the matter was determining when the commission became due for assessment. The assessees, who were directors in the company, argued that the commission was payable only after the accounts were audited and certified by the auditors. The Tribunal considered the significance of the audit completion date in ascertaining the net profits and concluded that the commission should be assessed in the year following the audit completion date, aligning with the assessees' contention.
Issue 3: The completion of the audit played a crucial role in determining the net profits for the relevant year. The Tribunal emphasized that the net profits were not finalized until the accounts were audited and certified by the auditors. The audit completion date was deemed significant in establishing the due date for the commission payment, supporting the assessees' argument for assessment in the subsequent year.
Issue 4: The Tribunal also delved into the consideration of the accounting basis for assessing the commission income. While certain items like house rent allowance or entertainment allowance may be included in the terms of appointment but not fully assessed, the Tribunal differentiated the treatment of commission income. The Tribunal highlighted that the commission payment depended on the earning of net profits, which were determined post-audit completion. Therefore, the commission should be assessed in the year following the audit, as maintained by the assessees.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals, ruling that the commission on net profits should be assessed in the subsequent year on a receipt basis. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of the audit completion date in determining the due date for the commission payment, aligning with the assessees' contentions and rejecting the department's appeal.
-
1981 (12) TMI 69
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of capital gains on the sale of shares by a non-resident company.
2. Applicability of Rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. Determination of the cost of acquisition of shares.
4. Relevance of foreign exchange rates in computing capital gains.
5. Applicability of Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
6. Relevance of prior Tribunal decisions in similar cases.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Computation of Capital Gains on the Sale of Shares by a Non-Resident Company:
The appellant, a non-resident company, sold 9,520 shares of Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. and declared capital gains of Rs. 16,016. The ITO rejected this computation, determining the capital gains to be Rs. 49,553 based on the sale price in Indian rupees. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this assessment, emphasizing that the transactions occurred in Indian currency and the capital gains should be computed in rupees.
2. Applicability of Rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962:
The appellant argued that Rule 115 should apply, converting the capital gains into US dollars. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that Rule 115 was not applicable because the transactions were conducted in Indian currency. The capital gains accrued in India and were realized in Indian rupees, making the rule inapplicable.
3. Determination of the Cost of Acquisition of Shares:
The appellant contended that the cost of acquisition should be adjusted to account for devaluation. The Tribunal rejected this, noting that the shares were acquired at Rs. 10 per share (totaling Rs. 47,600) and the cost was correctly determined in Indian rupees. The remittance of funds in US dollars for the purchase was deemed irrelevant for computing the acquisition cost.
4. Relevance of Foreign Exchange Rates in Computing Capital Gains:
The appellant's method of computing capital gains based on US dollars was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that for tax purposes in India, transactions must be evaluated in terms of Indian rupees. The remittance of sale proceeds in US dollars did not alter the initial receipt in Indian rupees.
5. Applicability of Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appellant argued that Section 45 should not apply as the capital gains were deemed or illusory. The Tribunal disagreed, affirming that the transactions were real and the capital gains were actual, not fictional. The appellant's own declaration of capital gains in its return further invalidated this argument.
6. Relevance of Prior Tribunal Decisions in Similar Cases:
The Tribunal referenced two prior decisions: Kelvinator International Corporation and Arwood Corporation. Both cases supported the view that capital gains should be computed in Indian rupees. The Tribunal found these decisions directly applicable and rejected the appellant's contention that they were distinguishable. The Tribunal also disagreed with a contrary decision in Abbey Etna Machine Co., favoring the reasoning in Kelvinator and Arwood.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the ITO's computation of capital gains at Rs. 49,553, dismissing the appellant's method of computation based on US dollars and the applicability of Rule 115. The transactions being in Indian currency necessitated the computation of capital gains in Indian rupees. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the reasoning and conclusions of the Commissioner (Appeals).
-
1981 (12) TMI 68
The ITAT Delhi-A heard appeals by the revenue regarding interest charged under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act for tax short deducted at source. The appeals were allowed, stating that interest should be charged from the date of deduction to the date of actual payment of tax. The assessee's attempt to show no default was not accepted as they did not appeal the Commissioner's decision.
-
1981 (12) TMI 67
Issues: Levy of interest for non-payment of tax, valuation of jewellery, non-service of assessment order and demand notice
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI-A, the main contentions revolved around the levy of interest for non-payment of tax and the valuation of jewellery by the WTO, which the assessee deemed excessive. However, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the non-service of the assessment order and demand notice to the assessee for three years, leading to the argument that no assessments had been legally made on the assessee for those years, thereby challenging the imposition of interest for non-payment of tax. The Tribunal observed that although the WTO had completed assessments and prepared demand notices, they were dispatched to the assessee's old address, not the current one. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence proving the service of notices on the assessee and criticized the lack of effort by the WTO to verify delivery with postal authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim of non-receipt of assessment orders and demand notices, supporting the contention that interest should not be charged for non-payment of tax without proper demand.
Regarding the legal consequences of the non-service of assessment orders and demand notices, the Tribunal declined to quash the WTO's order entirely but acknowledged the illegality arising post-assessment due to non-delivery of notices. Citing the decision in Guduthur Bros. v. ITO, the Tribunal directed the WTO to re-serve copies of assessment orders and demand notices to the correct address of the assessee, effectively restoring the process to the assessment stage. The Tribunal also instructed the WTO to adjust any tax payments made by the assessee post-assessment before issuing fresh demand notices. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the WTO for compliance with legal requirements.
In light of the directions regarding the non-service issue, the Tribunal refrained from addressing the jewellery valuation concern at present. Concerning the interest charged for non-payment of tax, the Tribunal emphasized that without proper service of the demand notice initially, no default could be attributed to the assessee in tax payment, leading to the inevitable legal consequences of this finding. Ultimately, the appeals were treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1981 (12) TMI 66
Issues:
- Non-service of notice for the date of hearing
- Ex parte decision by the AAC
- Compliance with mandatory provisions of section 250(6)
Analysis:
1. Non-service of notice for the date of hearing:
The appeal was filed against the order of the AAC, A-Range, New Delhi, which was decided ex parte. The appellant contended that they did not receive the notice of hearing dated 9-9-1980. The Tribunal found that no service of notice was effected on the assessee for the date of hearing, as required by Section 250(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Citing the case of Mangat Ram Kuthiala v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 1, the Tribunal emphasized that the hearing of parties is a statutory imperative, and failure to serve notice deprives the party of the opportunity to present its case.
2. Ex parte decision by the AAC:
The Tribunal held that the impugned order by the AAC was not a speaking order and did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AAC's decision to adopt the ITO's order without providing specific reasons was deemed insufficient. Referring to the case of Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. Union of India [1973] 92 ITR 1, the Tribunal emphasized that the statutory authority must apply its own mind and provide reasons for its decision. The lack of a fair opportunity for the appellant to represent its case and the absence of a speaking order rendered the AAC's decision flawed.
3. Compliance with mandatory provisions of section 250(6):
The Tribunal concluded that the AAC's order was vitiated due to the denial of a fair opportunity for the appellant to present its case and the failure to issue a speaking order. As per the decision, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was restored to the file of the AAC. The AAC was directed to provide the appellant with a proper opportunity to represent its case and decide the appeal on merits according to the law. The impugned order was set aside, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and providing a fair hearing to the parties involved.
-
1981 (12) TMI 65
Issues:
1. Whether the interest derived by minors on investments made with a firm is assessable in the hands of the mother under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The case involved a departmental appeal where the revenue contended that the interest earned by a minor on investments made with a firm should be assessed in the hands of the mother under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The minor son was admitted to the benefits of partnership in a firm, and the share of profits was assessed in the hands of the mother. Additionally, interest earned by the minor on amounts in his personal account was also assessed under section 64(1)(iii). The contention was that if the minor's credit was for the consideration of partnership benefits, the interest would be included in the parent's assessment. However, the appellate authority noted that there was no obligation for the minor to provide capital to the firm, and the interest income might not be liable if the deposit had no relation to the benefits of partnership. The appellate authority held that interest on accumulated profits is includible in the parent's income but excluded a portion of the interest accruing on deposits from the assessment under section 64(1)(iii).
The department appealed the decision, arguing that the interest earned by the minor on the initial capital should be included in the mother's income. The partnership deed indicated that the minor was admitted to the benefits of partnership with a share in profits but no requirement for capital investment. The balance sheet showed investments by partners and the minor, with the minor depositing an initial capital amount. The tribunal found a direct connection between the admission of the minor to partnership benefits and the interest earned on the initial capital. It concluded that the interest on capital investment should be included in the mother's income under section 64(1)(iii), rejecting the argument that no such connection was established. The tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of including the interest earned on the capital in the mother's income.
In summary, the tribunal decided that the interest derived by a minor on investments made with a firm, specifically on the initial capital introduced by the minor upon admission to the benefits of partnership, should be assessable in the hands of the mother under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the direct connection established between the admission of the minor to partnership benefits and the interest earned on the initial capital, leading to the inclusion of the interest in the mother's income.
-
1981 (12) TMI 64
Issues:
1. Validity of continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of partnership deed regarding distribution of profits.
3. Application of section 186(1) for cancellation of registration.
4. Effect of admission made by the assessee before the AAC.
5. Jurisdiction of the ITO under section 186(1) in proceedings under section 184(7).
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the validity of the continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee-firm, V.S. Madhusudan Dayal & Co., applied for continuation of registration, but the Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed it, citing that the profits were not distributed according to the terms of the partnership deed. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the division of gross receipts, as per the partnership deed, did not align with the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, leading to the refusal of continuation of registration.
2. The interpretation of the partnership deed regarding the distribution of profits was a crucial issue. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) analyzed the partnership deed and concluded that the partners were not sharing the net profits of the firm as required by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The AAC held that the firm was not validly established under the Act and that the partners had not divided the net profits of the firm as per the partnership deed, leading to the refusal of confirmation of registration.
3. The application of section 186(1) for cancellation of registration was contested in the appeal before the Tribunal. The counsel for the assessee argued that section 186(1) could not be invoked in proceedings arising from an application under section 184(7) for continuation of registration. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's counsel, stating that section 186(1) only pertained to cases where registration was initially granted or extended, not in proceedings initiated under section 184(7).
4. The effect of the admission made by the assessee before the AAC was also examined. The departmental representative contended that the AAC had the authority to consider section 186(1) based on the admission made by the assessee. However, the Tribunal held that if the application of section 186(1) was incorrect, the admission made by the assessee before the AAC could be ignored, as there is no estoppel against law.
5. The jurisdiction of the ITO under section 186(1) in proceedings under section 184(7) was a critical aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that the ITO could not refuse continuation of registration based on defects in the partnership deed or the distribution of profits among partners if the application for continuation of registration was made in time and in order. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, stating that the firm was entitled to the continuation of registration for the year under consideration.
-
1981 (12) TMI 63
Issues:
- Disallowance of medical aid payment as a deduction by the assessee-company for commercial expediency.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by a private limited company, engaged in the publication of books, against the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 paid towards medical aid to one of its writers. The company argued that the payment was essential for its business due to the significant contributions of the writer to the company's success. The writer's works had been instrumental in boosting the company's sales, and his health directly impacted the company's profitability. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had viewed the payment as charity or donation, disallowing the deduction. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the payment lacked contractual obligation or commercial expediency, deeming it voluntary and non-deductible. The company then appealed to the ITAT.
The ITAT, after hearing both parties, ruled in favor of the assessee-company. It emphasized that the payment was not merely charity but made for commercial expediency, considering the writer's crucial role in the company's success. The writer's recovery led to the creation of another profitable novel for the company. The ITAT highlighted the author-publisher relationship between the parties, stating that the payment was not to a stranger but to a key contributor to the company's profits. It noted that maintaining the writer's health was in the company's best interest to continue benefiting from his works. The tribunal concluded that the payment was made to ensure the writer's well-being for future business gains, establishing a commercial expediency basis for the deduction, contrary to the lower authorities' views.
In summary, the ITAT allowed the appeal, overturning the disallowance of the medical aid payment as a deduction by the assessee-company. The decision emphasized the commercial expediency of the payment, highlighting the author's integral role in the company's success and the necessity of ensuring his welfare for continued profitability.
-
1981 (12) TMI 62
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of cross-objections filed by the assessee.
2. Disallowance of directors' salaries.
3. Disallowance of business development expenses.
4. Disallowance of sales promotion expenses.
5. Disallowance of bonus to directors.
6. Part allowance of interest by the Commissioner.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of Cross-Objections Filed by the Assessee:
The Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the cross-objections filed by the assessee, arguing that once the right of appeal is exercised by the assessee, the right to file a cross-objection is lost. The Tribunal overruled this objection after considering the relevant provisions of law, including section 253 (1) to (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rules 22 and 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Tribunal concluded that the statute allows the filing of cross-objections even if an appeal has already been filed by the assessee, as cross-objections are not strictly equivalent to appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that cross-objections are a right that accrues upon receipt of notice of an appeal filed by the other party, and this right is not negated by the prior filing of an appeal by the assessee.
2. Disallowance of Directors' Salaries:
The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of Rs. 12,000 out of the directors' salaries for the assessment year 1977-78. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim for directors' remuneration had been previously allowed in full for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. Applying the principles of commercial expediency, the Tribunal found that the remuneration paid to the directors was not excessive or unreasonable, considering the increase in turnover and the nature of the business. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for directors' remuneration in full for the assessment year 1977-78.
3. Disallowance of Business Development Expenses:
The Tribunal considered the disallowance of business development expenses for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80. The Tribunal found that the expenses incurred by the assessee were for the furtherance of its business and were not in the nature of entertainment. The Tribunal concluded that the amounts sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) were not justified and deleted the disallowances, granting relief to the assessee for all the assessment years under appeal.
4. Disallowance of Sales Promotion Expenses:
The Tribunal examined the disallowance of sales promotion expenses for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80. The Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had not provided sufficient details to justify the disallowance under rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowances were not warranted and deleted them, allowing the assessee's claim for sales promotion expenses in full for all the assessment years under appeal.
5. Disallowance of Bonus to Directors:
The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of Rs. 4,500 claimed by the assessee as bonus for the assessment year 1977-78. The Tribunal found that the bonus paid to the directors was justified as part of their remuneration for services rendered to the assessee's business. The Tribunal allowed the bonus payment in full, rejecting the Revenue's contention.
6. Part Allowance of Interest by the Commissioner:
The Tribunal considered the appeals of the Revenue challenging the part allowance of interest by the Commissioner (Appeals). The ITO had disallowed interest paid to directors and their relatives at a rate exceeding 18% per annum, invoking sections 40A(8) and 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed relief based on the Tribunal's earlier judgment for the assessment year 1976-77, which held that section 40A(8) was applicable but not section 40(c). The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the specific provision of section 40A(8) should prevail over the general provision of section 40(c). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all the appeals of the assessee, dismissing the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee. The Tribunal's decisions were based on a detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions and prior judgments, ensuring that the assessee's claims were justified and the disallowances made by the Revenue were not warranted.
........
|
9911796707
