|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 233 Records
-
1982 (2) TMI 134 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Firm, Registration, Validity Of Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... he genuineness of the firm, nor does the loan taken in his individual capacity initially. The firm has considered the construction of the godown as construction by itself. In these circumstances, even assuming that FCI was unaware of the formation of the partnership, since there is no contravention of any statutory requirement nor is there any action on the part of the assessee which is opposed to public policy, it cannot be said that the formation of a partnership for exploiting the godown is in any manner vitiated. 18. We are unable to agree with the authorities below that the firm in question which was duly evidenced by a partnership deed was not genuine. Each of the partners had contributed capital either in kind or by way of money. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that in the present case there was no warrant for refusing registration to the assessee-firm. Registration is, accordingly, directed to be granted for the assessment year 1978-79 and the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 133 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Reassessment, Non-Disclosure Of Primary Facts ... ... ... ... ..... trict Munsiff clearly supports the assessee s contention that the lands in question were of agricultural in nature. When one competent court has already come to the conclusion that the lands were agricultural in nature, in our view, it is not open to the department again to agitate the question whether the lands were agricultural in nature or not. Further the assessee also produced a notice signed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, addressed to the assessee, wherein the lands were described as ryotwari lands. Therefore, in the absence of evidence on the part of the department to show that the character of land was later on changed from agricultural to non-agricultural, we are of the opinion that the decision cited by the department will not support the view taken by the department. Accordingly, we hold that the view taken by the AAC on this point appears to be quite correct and reasonable and, hence, his order is confirmed. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 132 - ITAT DELHI-D
Amounts Not Deductible, Interest Paid To Partners ... ... ... ... ..... the individual, was different from the ITO who assessed the association, by the action of the first officer the option in the department to assess either the association or its individual members must be deemed to have been exercised and the second officer would be bound by the action of the first officer. The said conclusions of their Lordships also clearly suggest, firstly, that there is only a single passage of money and that the department having once exercised its option cannot go back on it in the matter of taxing an AOP as such or its individual constituents. In the present case that option stands exercised by the department in the form of individual constituents of the AOPs being substantively assessed. An AOP is not a legal person in the eye of law. For all these reasons, we reverse the learned Commissioner s finding and restore the finding of the ITO regarding the add back in question. 11. The revenue s appeal is allowed. The assessee s cross-objection is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 131 - ITAT DELHI-D
Net Wealth, Debt Owed, Central Board Of Direct Taxes ... ... ... ... ..... ive, in support of the proposition that the Wealth-tax Act being an all India enactment, where there exists a solitary ruling of the High Court, other High Courts as also the Tribunal should feel bound by such ruling. The ratio in Smt. Godavari Devi was laid down in the peculiar context of the constitutional vires of a certain provision i.e., section 140A(3), and not on the aspect of interpretation as such of provision of the Income-tax Act. 15. In the result, the AAC s order is confirmed. 16. So far as the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 are concerned, we on the aforesaid reasonings again confirm the AAC s order. 17. Though the figures of the returned estimated value of the asset in question and of deductions held by the WTO as admissible under section 2(m) as for the subsequent three assessment years vary in comparison with the comparative figures of assessment year 1973-74, the issue involved before us is not different in character. 18. Appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 130 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... ay of advance tax and tax deducted at source are admittedly more than the assessed taxes as a registered firm, In such a case, this Bench earlier held that no penalty is eligible All the case laws cited by both the parties were duly considered. The case of M/s Priya Gopal Bishoyee (1981) 20 CTR (Cal) 242 (1981) 127 ITR 778 cited on behalf of the Revenue now is distinguishable as in that case the assessed tax was paid after the return was filed but before the date of levy of penalty. Applying the ratio of the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Vegetable Products Case (1971) 80 ITR 14, the assessee claimed that no penalty was eligible. Clearly this is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Since we find that the facts of this case are identical to that of M/s. Bhabuti Contractor, we respectfully follow our earlier order and hold that no penalty is exigible in such a case. The order of the AAC is accordingly confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 129 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... squarely applicable in the instant cases. The decision of the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M/s. Amrit Lal Shomabai is in a altogether different context and is clearly distinguishable. Their Lordships in that case were not required to consider whether delay of the firm would constitute reasonable cause for the partners. What they hold was that the firm and partners were distinct entities and penalties were separately leviable. To this proposition there is no dispute, however, where there is delay in the case of a partner due to the non finalisation of the accounts by the firm and the non-intimation of the share income, it would constitute a reasonable cause as held in M/s Venkateshwara Power Rolling Mills. The assessee in the present case did not delay in filing of the return after receipt of their respective share income from the firm. As such, the AAC is quite justified in cancelling the penalties which we uphold. 5. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 128 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... on by him. Since the original firm consisted of two partners, there was a dissolution in the eye of law on the death of one of the partners. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submission. On the facts of the case as evident from the records, the decision of the Hon rsquo bleAllahabadHigh Court in M/s. Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory relied upon by the AAC is squarely applicable. Similar view is taken by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Construction Co. (1975) 98 ITR 571 (Del) and in the case of CIT vs. Sohan Lal Arvind Kumar (1981) 25 CTR (Del) 207. Considering these decisions and also that of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products 1973 CTR (SC) 177 (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC), we are inclined to agree with the AAC for the proposition that the interpretation favourable to assessee should be followed where two views are possible. The order of the AAC is accordingly upheld. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 127 - ITAT DELHI-A
Payments Not Deductible ... ... ... ... ..... mistake which is deemed to exist in the order of assessment dated21-8-1971. It is with reference to that order, that normal period of limitation under section 154 has to be computed. However, as discussed by me earlier, we are not concerned with the general provisions of limitation contained in section 154(7), as the present rectification is governed by a special provision contained in the first proviso to section 40A(3) and that provision has to be strictly applied. In the light of this view, it is not necessary for me to consider the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, though, such authority would support his case, if the rectifications were to be made under section 154(7). 20. Inthe light of the above discussion, I have to hold that the impugned order of the ITO, having been passed beyond the period of limitation, is invalid in law. 21. The case will now go back to the Bench, which heard the appeal, for disposal, in accordance with the above opinion.
-
1982 (2) TMI 126 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... any particular day it wanted to employ additional casual workers to enhance the figure to ten or more but that it could not do so by reason of non-availability of casual labourers and if it chose to have less than ten workers on its muster roll, it ran the risk of not satisfying the requirement on such days on which the necessary number of casual workers is not available. On the authority of this decision, it has to be held that the assessee herein has not satisfied the requirement of employing ten or more workers in the manufacturing process for the purpose of claiming the relief both under sections 80HH and 80J. We, therefore, find that the assessee s claim for relief under section 80HH and under section 80J in these two assessment years is inadmissible. We confirm the order of the Commissioner for the year 1975-76 and dismiss IT Appeal No. 842 (Coch)/77-78. We also allow the Revenue s appeal No. 621 (Coch)/77-78 set aside the order of the AAC and restored that of the ITO.
-
1982 (2) TMI 125 - ITAT COCHIN
Appeal To AAC, Appealable Orders, Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... assessee s counsel stated that it was not impossible for the assessee to produce the creditors if sufficient opportunity was given and in the light of the explanation given no addition could be justifiably made. The learned counsel also undertook to produce the creditors before the ITO without any summons being issued, stating that the opportunity to prove the genuineness of the credits should not, therefore, be denied to the assessee. We agree with the AAC that the ITO had made the addition without completing the enquiry regarding the nature of the credits. Now when the assessee has undertaken to produce the concerned persons it is only proper that the assessee is given an opportunity to establish his case. The assessment has been set aside by the AAC and the order is confirmed, subject to the modification that the assessee shall produce the persons before the ITO without the ITO summoning the persons as directed by the AAC. 9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 124 - ITAT COCHIN
Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... lant. 27. The Maharaja was entitled to, even according to the appellant, the beneficial enjoyment of the properties which we have found had the attributes of sthanam properties. Such beneficial interest is property that passes under section 5. It is not correct to say that the Maharaja had no power for disposal. The Maharaja was entitled to alienate the property or encumber the same and it was under his absolute control. Section 6 is also thus attracted. When it is found that the estate had the incidents and characteristics of sthanam properties the exemption under section 7(4) does not apply and the property must be deemed to pass under sub-section (1) of section 7. Accordingly, we hold that the Palliyara Muthalpidi estate had been rightly included in the estate of the deceased and this decision of the Appellate Controller calls for no interference. 28 to 32. These paras are not reproduced here as they deal with minor issues . 33. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 123 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... explanation and it even offered that the same may be verified by the ITO by summoning the parties. In the absence of explanation which was summarily rejected by the ITO, the parties were not called or summoned for the purpose of verification, as per alternative submission of the assessee. The burden of the assessee firstly in the absence of specific provisions in that regard like section 132 (4A) which came on the statute subsequently inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 1975, w.e.f. 1st October, 1975 on 28th February, 1974 when the said amendment Act was placed on the floor of the House, the assessee s case being in respect of earlier year, is on a stronger pedestal so far as even the burden of papers found in the course of search and seizure are concerned. In the light of the above discussion, we reverse the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and delete the addition of Rs. 20,000 confirmed by him from undisclosed sources. . In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 122 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... or the assessee though was not in cross appeal but as a respondent could certainly support the finding of the AAC on contentions not newly raised before us but which were before the lower authorities. The reliance of the ld. Deptl. Rep. on the case of Narendrakumar J. Modi is misplaced on the basis of facts of this case and it will also not serve any purpose to go to the provisions of s. 4(v) of the WT Act which appears in the order of the AAC and was also mentioned by the ld. counsel for the assessee before us. On the short ground that it was for a consideration and as a consequence of partition and in own right, that Brish Bhan and his wife got the property what they got from the assessee, the change of status by GTO or the basis of deletion adopted by the AAC as the said amounts were subjected to wealth-tax in his own case, according to us, could not be fatal to the assessee s claim. The order of the AAC is, therefore, confirmed. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 121 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... . 4th Oct. 1979 it was incumbent upon the ITO to have considered this and given a reasoned order instead of embarking upon approximate consumption without considering the statistical data placed before him which emanates from the books of account. The addition was actually on the basis of conjectures and surmises and should not have been sustained by the AAC. It was rightly deleted. 12. In so far as, the bardana account is concerned, the amount of Rs. 2,000 has been sustained by the AAC on the ground that no stock tally was produced or maintained. If the fact that the assessee incurs loss because of the use of bardana as pointed out in para 7 of the impugned order of the AAC, it has to be believed and a part of the expense cannot be disallowed unless there is an evidence to do so. We, therefore, reverse this order of the AAC and allow the entire claim. The results of this will be that the appeal of the Revenue will be dismissed and the appeal of the assessee allowed in toto.
-
1982 (2) TMI 120 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... uence of appeal in firm s case where the ITO could grant the interest. In the instant case itself, the ITO granted interest and we are unable to accept the contention of the 1d. Dept1. Rep. that it was a mistake comparable with clerical or calculation mistake as in the assessment form and it was not as a consequence of the ITO s application of mind but on account of clerical act. There is no dispute about the fact that it was a consequence of audit who objected to the grant of interest, that the ITO sought to rectification. Even before us there was a long debate drawn in this respect regarding applicability of s. 244(1A) and we are of the view that the issue under consideration being of debatable in nature could not be rectified under s. 154 proceedings in the light of Balram, T.S., ITO vs. Volkart Bros. and Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). The contention raised by the assessee, therefore, is accepted and the action of the AAC is reversed. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 119 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... herefore, answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 10. In the instant case, though the receipts for a part of the year were concealed but the estimate for balance of the period and also the estimate of expenses was made wherein the expenses alleged to have been suppressed by the assessee were not taken into account which, in other words, was rejection or explanation as a result of which the estimate was made and came to be confirmed by the Tribunal. 11. Before we part, we may also mentioned that under identical circumstances on the basis of similar estimates and similar decisions of the ITO and the Appellate Authorities for asst.yr.1971-72,the IAC of his own had dropped the penalty proceedings of concealment under s. 271(1)(c). 12. In the light of the above discussion and following most respectfully the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Sunder Lal Mohinder Pal, we have cancel the penalty. 13. The appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 118 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 460 being income from interest on FDRs inasmuch as the income allocated to each partner out of this income is exempt in his or her hands . From perusal of the order of the CIT (Appeals), we find that in respect of this contention he found the reliance of the authorised representative for the assessee on the Chandigarh Bench decision in the case of Raj Kumar and decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Brij Raman Dass (1977) 9 CTR 50 (All) as misplaced. May be that the said decisions are not applicable to the issue raised by the assessee before us on all fours but if theory of deduction is to be adopted and s. 67(2) of the Act is to be read carefully, the allocation of dividend income and that of interest from FDRs ought to have been made so that the benefit of exemption to the partners available under the Act should not have been denied. The contention of the assessee, therefore, in respect of this ground is also accepted. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 117 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Remission Or Cessation Of Trading Liability ... ... ... ... ..... d filed a revision before the Judge Revisions, Sales Tax, Agra. In the instant case, it is not that the grant of refund is disputed in appeal, but the refund granting authority itself has observed that the said refund was granted under a mistaken belief or on the basis of evidence which would not have entitled the assessee to any refund. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that this was a cessation of liability and as such the assessee s claim deserves to be accepted. 12. Before we part, we may observe that identical show-cause notices were accepted by three more parties, may be that in one of them, the lawyer representing in the instant case was arguing for the assessee, cannot lend any assistance to the case of the revenue because, to our mind, that is hardly of any relevance and action of those three parties can neither be precedent nor binding in the instant case. 13. As we have reversed the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 116 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... facts given by the AAC that the assessee had in fact incurred the expenses. Since the expenses at 40 per cent are reasonable and fair, in our opinion, the entire expenses should have been allowed. Therefore, the learned AAC erred in restricting the allowance to 20 per cent of the gross incentive bonus. We direct that 40 per cent expenses be allowed. 15. We have also carefully perused the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Dr. C. Parkash. In that case also the assessee was an employee of the Government having fixed salary. The income earned by him as a doctor in the pay-in-clinics was treated as professional income and not part of the salary received from the Government. The Tribunal allowed expenses against the professional income in the computation for purposes of taxation. The ratio of that judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of the case in question. 16. In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections of the assessee allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 115 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Depreciation, Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... the previous year. We would like to emphasise that rule 5 provides that depreciation will be allowed if the assets are owned by the assessee and used in his business or profession at any time during the previous year. The assessee before us has used the assets which are owned by him in the business carried on by him from 1-11-1975 to 31-3-1976. Therefore, we do not see any reason why depreciation should not be allowed to the assessee. The argument of the authorities below that it tantamounts to allowing depreciation twice on the same assets during the same assessment year cannot be considered as a reason for denying the assessee what the law clearly provides him. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed with the directions that the ITO would consider the claim of the assessee with regard to depreciation for all the assets owned and used by the assessee in the business carried on, including the assets received at the time of dissolution of the firm. 8. Appeal allowed.
............
|
