|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 181 Records
-
1988 (10) TMI 81 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee on 30th Nov., 1984 are valid in law and have to be treated as voluntary returns but the assessments were completed long after the period of one year envisaged in the second limb of s. 17A(1)(b) and hence the assessments are invalid. 11. The alternative submission of Sri Ratnakar is that even if the returns are not held to be valid in the eye of law, they did provide information to the WTO to the effect that assessable wealth had escaped assessment and therefore, the notice issued under s. 17 should be construed only as a notice issued under cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 17 and not under cl(a) Sri Radhakrishna Murthy vehemently objects to such a proposition. As the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee on the main plank of her agreement that the return were returns but the assessment were barred by limitation, we refrain ourselves from expressing any view whatever on the alternative argument advanced before us. 12. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 80 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Corrosive Chemicals, Higher Rate, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... Income-tax Officer to allow depreciation at 15 on machineries other than those on which only the normal rate of depreciation will be available as indicated by us in para 9. 12. The appeals were finally heard on 12-8-1988. Subsequent to that, the revenue has filed an application for the admission of additional evidence in the form of an opinion given by the Government Chemical Examiner for Excise through his letter dated 14-6-1988 received by the department on 26-6-1988. The Government Examiner was present at the time of our inspection of the factory on 11-6-1988 along with Sri P. Radhakrishna Murty, learned departmental representative. The Government Examiner did not choose to cross-examine the deponent, nor did he choose to give any evidence before us. His opinion was also received by the Tribunal only after the final hearing of the case. In the circumstances, we are constrained to decline to admit this additional evidence. 13. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 79 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... partner brings his asset into the partnership that was not with the purpose of creating rights in that property for others but to do business with that property and earn profits. 13. It is therefore clear that it is impossible to say that the transfer was for inadequate consideration. In this connection, Mr. Razaak had referred to a decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GTO vs. His Highness Sri Gaj Singh (1986) 26 TTJ 503 (Jp) therein the Tribunal had taken a similar view i.e. it is impossible to say that the consideration is inadequate. Therefore, we hold that there cannot be a case of deemed gift. 14. In view of our finding above which rests on settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthabhai s case, we are not considering the other submissions made by Mr. Razaak which touch upon the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. 15. In the result, we hold that there is no deemed gift and, therefore, the appeals should be allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 78 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... is allowance cannot be increased as was increased by the assessee firm. 19. The next ground of appeal is against the disallowance of Rs. 11,547 being the amount claimed by the assessee as repairs. The lower authorities have held the same to be of capital nature. We have perused the details. It is found that assessee has purchased the bricks for value of Rs. 9,000, cement of Rs. 2,500 and incurred labour charges. We, therefore, hold that the lower authorities have rightly treated the said expenses as of capital nature. The assessee is, however, entitled to depreciation in accordance with the provisions of s. 32(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. 20. The other grounds are against the disallowance of 1/4th of car expenses, Rs. 1,500 out of general charges and Rs. 3,000 out of travelling expenses. On perusal of the details we find that the disallowances have been properly made. Thus all these three disallowances are hereby confirmed. 21. In the result assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 77 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... o be accepted that the powers conferred on the Tribunal under s. 254 carried with it the power to award costs as being incidental and necessary to the power under s. 254 as an inherent power and jurisdiction, it hardly needs to be emphasised that such power has to be exercised in a suitable case if the facts so warrant. In the present case we do not consider that on facts any award of costs would be justified. It could not be said that the reference application of the Department for referring the proposed question is either false or vexatious or such as to justify the award of costs on any other grounds. The request of the assessee-respondent is, therefore, not acceptable. 8. In the result the reference application is rejected. P.J. GORADIA, A.M. Though I agree with the conclusion on point of costs discussed in para 7 of the order passed by my learned brother I will only highlight that the Tribunal has the inherent power to award costs if the facts in a given case so warrant.
-
1988 (10) TMI 76 - ITAT DELHI-D
Business Profits, Collaboration Agreement, Foreign Enterprise, Representative Assessee, Tax At Source
-
1988 (10) TMI 75 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... partly, the Tribunal restored the matter to the ITO with a direction to comply with the requirement of seeking the previous approval of the IAC and to dispose of the matter according to provisions of law. 9. On the aforesaid facts, the following questions of law, in our view, arise from the order of the Tribunal 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was guilty of concealing the factum of pendency of the arbitration proceedings when a reference to those proceedings finds place in the assessment order dt.26th March, 1976. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO had rightly applied the provisions of s. 271(1) (c) to the facts of the case. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in restoring the matter to the ITO to enable him to obtain the approval of the IAC and then levy the penalty again .
-
1988 (10) TMI 74 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... exemption in these two cases should be allowed for three months and 2 months respectively. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned ITO rightly restricted the exemption in both the cases and we uphold the action of the authorities below. 9. No other point was argued before us in these appeals. 10. In the grounds of appeal in the case of Bateman a ground has been set up that the AAC was in error in not dealing with the ground relating to the residential status of the assessee. In the assessment order this person has been referred as R and OR . This appears to be a clerical mistake which has not resulted in any disadvantage to the assessee because the income assessed is only the income earned by the assessee inIndiaduring his period of stay inIndia. That is probably the reason that the learned counsel for the assessee did not address any argument on this issue before us and the same will be deemed to have been rejected. 11. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 73 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... fiscated. No enquiry has been made on that end and the Revenue has not even filed before us a copy of the statement of the assessee recorded by the Enforcement Directorate on the date of the search or any date thereafter where he admitted or refuted the charge regarding his violation of the law relating to foreign exchange regulations. Since the vital points on which enquires were either not conducted or not brought to conclusive end, we at this stage find it difficult to determine the issues on these half baked facts. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the interest of justice to both the sides, the orders, of the authorities below should be set aside with the directions to the ITO to take note of what we have observed supra and proceed afresh to make de novo assessment in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee on all the points in dispute We order accordingly. 17. Appeals shall be considered as allowed for statistics.
-
1988 (10) TMI 72 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... ng passed in both the cases. As is evident from the Tribunal s order dt.29th April, 1988, the controversy in being agitated in the case of Shri A.N. Agarwal and unless it is finally decided there, it cannot be said conclusively as to whether the amount belongs to the present assessees or to Shri A.N. Agarwal. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that in the case of Smt. Shobha Agarwal for asst. yr. 1982-83 the Department has accepted the CIT(A) s order is not supported by any material. In any case the failure of the Department to agitate that ground for one year cannot conclude the matter in favour of the assessee when we see that this contoversy is being raised from year to year and for asst. yr. 1981-82 with which we are concerned, the Tribunal has already restored the matter of Shri A.N. Agarwal to the CIT(A). In our view, therefore, these appeals have no force. The assessee have no legal grievance which they can agitate. The appeals are hereby dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 71 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... CIT (A) has not examined the facts of the present case to find out as to whether the securities on the sale of which the aforesaid loss had arisen from part of the stock-in-trade of the assessee or whether they were assessee s investment. The mere description with accounts would not determine the nature of the securities. For this, the learned CIT (A) must ascertain the facts for himself and then give his categorical finding as to whether the securities which have been sold during this accounting period were investments or stock-in-trade. After recording such finding of fact, he should determine whether the loss is business loss or capital loss. Without examining the facts, it would be risky to give any finding either way. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this point and refer the matter back to him for re-determining the issue bearing in mind the observations made above. 70. We will treat, for statistical purposes, the above departmental appeal as allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 70 - ITAT DELHI-B
Income Chargable As ... ... ... ... ..... ng, it did not mean that they were written off as bed debts nor can it mean that the interest debited to those accounts was not debited nor can it mean that they were written off as bed debts nor can it mean that the interest debited to those accounts was not debited nor can it mean that the interest taken credited of did not accrue. Whatever may be the reason advanced by a debtor, the debt becomes doubtful of recovery and according to the Supreme Court decision referred to above, the interest charged on such doubtful advances had accrued to the bank. Respectfully following the judgment of the Supreme Court, we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 1977-78 referred to by the Income-tax Officer in his order, is the right view in law and we uphold that, with the consequence that the order of the Commissioner (A) on this point is reversed and that of the Income-tax Officer is restored. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 69 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... nce was justified in respect of the emoluments paid to them. He, accordingly, deleted the addition of Rs. 40,455. The Department is aggrieved of the aforesaid finding of the learned CIT(A). In our opinion, however, the finding of the learned CIT(A) that the disallowances in respect of the Directors salaries should be done under s. 40(c) and not under s. 40A(S), appears to be correct and, accordingly, we see no justification in making the disallowance. 16. The 7th ground of appeal is with regard to the deletion of Rs. 2,500 which was added by the ITO out of the travelling expenses by the Directors. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition by pointing out that the ITO has made the disallowance of estimate without pointing out any instance of the expenses being of personal nature. The above finding of the learned CIT(A) is correct and this being so, he was in our opinion, entirely justified in deleting the addition made. Accordingly, the departmental appeal stands partly allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 68 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessment Year, Manufacture Or Production, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... and bottling stage are only to ensure that the toddy tapped does not detract from its fitness for consumption and to prevent health hazards. These are activities referable to marketing aspect of the toddy, but not production of the toddy. 6. Much stress was laid in the observation of their lordships in the case of Yagappa Nadar that extraction of a special product like toddy is an industrial operation as in the same way of manufacture of alcohol from sugarcane or rice. This statement made in passing altogether in a different context cannot be understood as answering a proposition whether the activity of manufacture or production is involved in tapping toddy from a palm. The question in that case was whether income from toddy tapping is or is not agricultural in nature. For the reasons given in the case of Sri Ranganatha Enterprises we are firm in our opinion that there is no manufacture or production of toddy to grant relief under section 80HHA. 7. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 67 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Being Heard, Reference To IAC, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... he validity of instructions issued u/s. 144A when proceedings u/s. 144B are pending was also approved by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. N. Krishnan 1988 172 ITR 604. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the procedure followed by the ITO in submitting a second draft order and the IAC s action in issuing instructions on the basis of the second draft order u/s. 144A and u/s. 144B are correct and the CIT (Appeals) was in error in setting aside the order of the ITO holding that the second draft assessment order is not a valid one and directing the ITO to complete the assessment on the basis of the instruction of the IAC in so far as it related to items referred to in the first draft order. We accordingly set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restore the appeal back to his file for disposal of other grounds raised before him on their merits. 4. In the result, the assessee s appeal is rejected and cross-objection by the revenue is allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 66 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... 85 be fixed at Rs. 4,79,000 and that the same can in no case extend beyond Rs. 5,00,000. In the same letter in para 8, the assessee s chartered accountant went on to state as under 8. It must be noted that even in the probate petition No. 613 of 1981 filed by M.D. Vaidya for obtaining probate of the last Will of Mr. D.M. Vaidya, the valuation of the said property at Rs. 4,79,000 has been duly accepted by the Hon ble Court. In view of this very specific admission of the assessee regarding the valuation of the property, we would hold that ends of justice would be met if the amount of Rs. 4,79,000 is taken as the value of the property even under s. 7(4) of the WT Act for all the year under appeal. We direct accordingly. We decline to allow the assessee to raise the additional ground about the application of r. 1BB which was not raised either before the WTO or before the AAC and which would require investigation into fresh facts. 7. The appeal will be treated as allowed in part.
-
1988 (10) TMI 65 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Assessment Year, Sales Tax Act, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... 6 per cent per annum from the specified date to the date of payment. In that context the Supreme Court further observed that interest payable on arrears under sec. 3(3) was in reality part and parcel of the liability to pay cess. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court held that interest payable under sec. 3(3) of U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act was allowable as a deduction in the computation of the total income of the assessee. The provisions of sec. 47(4A) of Gujarat Sales Act Tax being more or less in pari materia with the provisions of sec. 3(3) of U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the interest paid under those provisions have to be allowed as a deduction in the computation of the total income of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we shall reverse the findings of the CIT(A) and direct the ITO to allow the interest paid of Rs. 2,23,267 in the computation of the total income of the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 64 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... nsider whether the estimate filed by the assessee was in fact an under-estimate or was honest estimate based on the facts available at the time of preparation of the estimate. The estimate is to be considered with reference to the time when it is prepared and not with reference to the amount assessed in the assessment order. In the present case, the CIT(A) has found that the assessee had taken into account the facts available at the relevant time in preparing the estimates. The estimates were based on the facts as were known to the assessee at the relevant time. Consequently, there was no justification for levy of interest under s. 216 of the Act. The finding recorded by the CIT(A) is not shown to be erroneous. We confirm the said finding. We hold that the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the order to levy of interest under s. 216 of the Act. This ground is therefore, rejected. The appeals are partly allowed. Paras 17 to 29 not reproduced being involving trivial matters
-
1988 (10) TMI 63 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... eld by the Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (1985) 44 CTR (SC) 328 (1985) 152 ITR 308 (SC). On these facts, it cannot be said that there is any merit in the submissions of the assessee. These grounds are therefore rejected. 5. The next two grounds deal with depreciation on capital assets used for scientific research. Here again the grievance of the assessee is that the retrospective amendment in s. 35 to the extent it prohibits depreciation on capital assets used for scientific research and acquired in the earlier years is not constitutionally valid. This matter is again covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in CIT vs. Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. (1986) 52 CTR (Bom) 22 (1986) 161 ITR 692. However, it would be open to the assessee to renew the claim if these provisions are declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the matters before them. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1988 (10) TMI 62 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... e AAC held that the transaction was a speculative transaction and the loss should be regarded as a speculative loss. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and held that though the transaction was a speculative transaction, the loss was not speculative. 11. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision, we are of the opinion that even if it is a speculative transaction, it is not a speculative business of the assessee in view of the provisions of s. 28 of Expln. 2 to s. 28, and provisions of s. 73(1) are not attracted. We are therefore, of the opinion that the learned AAC failed to appreciate the legal position and he was not right in disallowing set off of the short-term capital loss of Rs. 17,850 to the assessee on sale of shares. We, therefore, set aside the order of the AAC and direct the ITO to allow set off of the short-term capital loss of Rs. 17,850 as claimed by the assessee. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
....
|
