|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 232 Records
-
1986 (4) TMI 133 - ITAT JABALPUR
Penalty, Late Filing Of Return ... ... ... ... ..... a) of the Act from the date of the service of the notice under section 148 of the Act to the date of the assessment, viz., 20th March, 1980 and the basis is to be the total assessed income and not the income subject-matter of escapement. 12. As per assessment order dated 20th March, 1980 the total income assessed and being charged to Income-tax is Rs. 8,40,097 (rounded off to Rs. 8,40,100) and this is to the basis and the penalty is to be based on the Income-tax payable on this total income, since this is the assessed income as per the assessment order dated 20th March, 1980. No two interpretations are possible, hence 88 ITR 192is not applicable. The default period, as already stated, is to be reckoned as per the terms of 148 notice and till the date of assessment. The penalty having justifiably on facts and in law been imposed and this having been rightly upheld by the learned first appellate authority, we do concur with their reasoning and the conclusions. The appeal fails.
-
1986 (4) TMI 132 - ITAT JABALPUR
Valuation Of Interests In Coparcenary Property, Maintenance Expenses Of Unmarried Daughter ... ... ... ... ..... the question that arose before us and this decision is in no way contrary to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. P. Leelavathamma. In view of this decision and the textual injunctions based upon the judicial pronouncement and Sastriac law, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to the claim that it made and its rejection is opposed to law. The property available for partition though it is deemed to be notional under section 39(1), cannot be arrived at without providing for the maintenance and marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter, which is a legitimate charge on the family property. This also takes into account the legal fiction created by section 39(3). There is no dispute about the quantum of expenditure claimed. We, therefore, hold that the claim of the assessee should be accepted and we direct the Assistant Controller to deduct that amount and modify the assessment accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1986 (4) TMI 131 - ITAT JABALPUR
Assessment, Benami Transaction ... ... ... ... ..... lse had claimed any right in the impugned investments. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fact remains that the investment in UPEM was made by Smt. Manbir Sondhi, the enjoyment of income is by her and she retains the full control over the income and the assets as also the custody thereof and accordingly the apparent is the real state of affairs cannot be disputed. The onus of proof to dislodge the belief about the apparent being the real state of affairs having not been discharged by the revenue, we do uphold the impugned order of the learned first appellate authority for the assessment year 1971-72 as also for subsequent assessment years under appeals, of course, fully concurring with his reasoning and conclusion. All the appeals fail and stand dismissed. 11. Before parting, we would like to say that since we have applied the tests laid down by their Lordships of the jurisdictional High Court, we are not considering the other case law for obvious reasons.
-
1986 (4) TMI 130 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... elates to the cancellation of the contract it is a capital loss and cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the business income. 9. The next ground is with regard to the relief under section 80J of the Act. This ground has to be rejected in view of the amendment to section 80J and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 152 ITR 308. Accordingly, we reject this ground. 10. The next ground is with regard to the disallowance of guest house expenditure of Rs. 3,046 and disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 13,088 of furnishings used in the guest house. This ground has to be rejected in view of the provisions of section 37(5) of the Act. Section 37(4) (ii) makes it clear that no allowance shall be made in respect of depreciation of any building used as guest house or depreciation of any assets used in the guest house. Thus, the claim of the assessee is not allowable. 11. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 129 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Method Of Accounting, Valuation Of Stock ... ... ... ... ..... o be valued at market price. This is clear from the decisions of the Madras High Court in the case of G. R. Ramachari and Co. When the law is clear, the question of taking any pragmatic view as contended by the learned counsel for the assessee does not arise. The decision of the Madras High Court in N. Muhammad Ussain Sahib s case relied on by the assessee s counsel does not support him in any way. We have already referred to this decisions. It was clearly held therein that the assets have to be valued on the basis of market value on the date of dissolution of the partnership. The decisions relied on in the case of CIT v. P. E. Polson 1945 13 ITR 384 (PC) is a case dealing with section 25 and 26 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and it has no application to the facts of the instant case. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has exhaustively considered in his order all the contentions of the assessee. We agree with his order. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 128 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... drinks, lunch etc. Hence it is clearly entertainment expenditure. It makes no difference even if the employees had participated in such parties given to customers. Thus we uphold the disallowance. 16. The next item is against the levy of interest of Rs. 8,32,895 under s. 215. This ground does not arise out of the order of the CIT (A). So we decline to entertain it. Even if it is entertained, in out view, no appeal is provided against the levy of interest under s. 215. In this connection we place reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. G. Brothers vs. CIT (1985) 47 CTR (AP) 213 (1983) 154 ITR 695 (AP) wherein it was held that no appeal is provided against levy of interest under s. 215 cannot be entertained. Thus we reject the same. 17. The next ground is against levy of interest of Rs. 37,683 under s. 216. This ground does not arise out of the order of the CIT (A). Hence we decline to entertain the same. 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 127 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Special Reserve, Deduction U/S 36(1)(viii) ... ... ... ... ..... l neglect of the purpose of section 36(1) (viii) and, therefore, we reject the contentions of the learned department representative. Not only Courts are empowered to put liberal construction to work out the purpose of the section, but also as per the qualifying words of section 2, the words in parenthesis occurring in section 36(1) (viii) have to be construed in the context in which they are found. Therefore, we have no hesit ion in rejecting the submissions made by the learned departmental representative. We set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this point. 13. The next ground, which deals with the claim for depreciation at revised rates, is not pressed. The ground is accordingly dismissed. 14. The last ground is in regard to interest under section 215 of the Act. This is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. G. Bros. v. CIT 1985 154 695. This ground is also dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 126 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Firm, Continuation Of Registration, Method Of Accounting, Rejection Of Accounts ... ... ... ... ..... s to the assessee, as the records show. This is not a case where the ITO without any proper inquiry had completed the assessment. The Commissioner has not shown any major omission in making the inquiries, which would result in setting aside of the entire assessment. 23. With regard to the minor findings regarding depreciation, we do not see any reason to go into the correctness of the order of the Commissioner, since this point was not seriously argued. We will uphold the orders of the Commissioner under section 263 limited to the inquiry of the correctness of depreciation in respect of the vehicles. 24. In the result, we would allow the appeals subject to our findings that section 263 orders would be limited to the purpose of an inquiry regarding the depreciation allowable. 25. Since we have disposed of the assessee s appeals, the miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee, praying for the stay of the recovery proceedings, become infructuous and they are hereby dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 125 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area ... ... ... ... ..... balance sheet of the company, the figures give by the Commissioner Appeals appears to be correct. We would, therefore, prefer to follow the figures given by the Commissioner Appeals . 10. Shri Pradhan then submitted that for the first year, the old machineries constituted more than 20 per cent of the total value of machineries and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction for the first year of production. If the assessee was not entitled to the deduction for the first year, it would not be entitled to the deduction in any of the subsequent years. We are unable to accept this submission either. It may be that for the first year the assessee did not satisfy the conditions. But that does not mean that in an year when the assessee satisfies the conditions, they should be denied the relief. This is now well accepted by the decision of the Gujarat High court in the case of CIT v. Satellite Engg. Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 208 We, therefore, dismiss the departmental appeal.
-
1986 (4) TMI 124 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... In re., Official Assignee for Bengal 1937 5 ITR 233 is distinguishable and it has no application to a case of capital gain. Section 160(1)(ii) also has no application as the Official Receiver has not received any income for the benefit of the insolvent and so he cannot be treated as representative-assessee. Thus, in our view on the sale of the insolvent s property by the Official Receiver no capital gain tax would be leviable. Thus, we cancel the orders of the lower authorities in living capital gains tax, on the sale of the land by the Official Receiver. 9. We also find force in the alternative contention of the assessee. In our view no profit or gain arises on the sale of agricultural land in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO 1981 128 ITR 87. For deciding whether any agricultural operations have been carried on the land the matter should go back to the ITO. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 123 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... me at Rs. 3,25,320 on which she levied tax of Rs. 2,45,270. This method of grossing up tax on tax cannot be upheld in view of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Superintending Engineer, Upper Sileru s case. It was observed as under ... There is no guidance in the orders of the ITO as to how the figure was arrived at. It is not known whether the ITO adopted the system of grossing up by working out tax on tax until he arrived at a 0 figure. If that was the basis followed, we do not think it is proper.... Thus, in our view the method of grossing up adopted by the ITO by working out tax on tax and arriving at the figure of Rs. 3,75,320 on which tax of Rs. 2,45,270 was levied cannot be sustained. The grossing up has to be done as laid down in the above decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. has absolutely no application to the facts of the instant case. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 122 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... t out to the assessees subject to availability. 4. We have considered the arguments advanced before us. No material has been brought on record which may indicate that the accommodation was let out to the assessees in pursuance of the contract of service. It appears, therefore, to be a case of tenancy in ordinary courses. This point also came up for our consideration in the group of cases of ITO vs. Shri K.N. Singhania (1986) 25 TTJ (Del) 301 and ITO vs. B.L. Tibrewal (1986) 25 TTJ (Del) 559 who also happens to be employees of M/s Gwalior Rayons Company. Their appeals bearing nos. 4975 to 4986/Del/84 and 4981 to 4982/Del/84 are being disposed of by us today wherein we have discussed the relevant law and various aspects involved in the case and it would be futile to repeat those reasons. While deciding those aspects appeals, we of have approved of the order passed by the CIT(A). 5. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 121 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... uthorised representative for the assessee has submitted that motor receipts and other documents had been filed before the authorities below in support of the contention that income was actually earned by plying the said truck. Those documents are not on record before us. The parties have, therefore, agreed that the case may be sent back to the CIT (A), who may re-hear the appeal in the light of the evidence of income. In case the truck had actually plied during the previous year and the assessee had derived income from the same, the assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation in respect thereof. 4. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the appeal to his file for re-hearing and disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. It shall be open to the parties to adduce further evidence relating to the income from the truck during the year in question. 5. For statistical purposes, the appeal shall be treated as allowed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... tion in question. Besides this, there in nothing on record which may indicate that the accommodation was given to the assessee in pursuance of his contract of services. The mere fact that the assessee happens to be the employee of his landlord cannot lead to the conclusion that the accommodation was let out in pursuance to the contract of service. It would be appropriate to mention here that a similar question came up for out consideration in the group of case of K. N. Singhania in ITA Nos. 4978 to 4890/Del/84 which was heard alongwith these appeals. The said cases are being disposed of today by us. In that group of cases, we have considered the various aspects of the case including the law cited before us, and we have accepted the assessee rsquo s contention on the point. For that reason also, we are inclined to accept the assessee rsquo s contention in these case as well. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeals and they are consequent dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 119 - ITAT DELHI-E
Penalty, Late Filing Of Return, Minor ... ... ... ... ..... as to who will sign the return. In the case of present assessee, who is a minor, the guardian of the assessee has filed a belated return and the minor cannot be penalised for an action to which the minor was not a privity. Nobody can be penalised for an action to which he is not a party and neither under section 14 nor under section 15A any obligation is cast on the guardian to file a return on behalf of the minor, hence, the provisions of the act do not postulate such a situation, viz., how a return on behalf of the minor is to be filed and by whom it is to be signed. In view of above legal position, the minor-assessee could not be subjected to levy of penalty under section 18(1), since no legal obligations cast either on the minor or on his guardian to file return of his net wealth. Penalty imposed upon the minor by the WTO and since sustained by the learned first appellate authority, being not warranted under the provisions of the Act, stands deleted. The appeal succeeds.
-
1986 (4) TMI 118 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... iginals are also available with the assessee. We have already referred to the details of such applications in Paragraph 3 supra. The fact that such applications were filed shows that the assessee was conscious of his statutory obligations and had some difficulty in meeting them. There was the difficulty about the accountants. There were also the illnesses of not only his father, but of his mother-in-law (who died ultimately in 1978) and also of his second daughter. These factual aspects have been commented upon in detail by the Commissioner(A) and they do not require repetition. In view of this position, it would be difficult to hold that the assessee had no reasonable cause for the default in question. On this ground alone, the order of the Commissioner(A) has to be maintained. 8. Apart from the above, Shankuntla Mehra operates here. The burden on the Revenue remains undischarged. This would be an additional reason for cancellation of the penalty. 9. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... atement made by the CIT (A). Shri Kumar, therefore, submits, that the impugned inclusion should be deleted. Shri O. P. Jain, Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the position. We find that the authorities have wrongly overlooked Prem Bhai Parekh. Explanation (3) seeks to nullify the effect of Prem Bhai Parekh, but the legislature for reasons best known to it has omitted cl. (vi) of s. 64(1) from the Explanation. It cannot, therefore, be applied where the transfer is made to a daughter-in-law. Proceeding on the ratio of Prem Bhai Parekh, we have to hold that the share of profit had only a remote connection with the gift of Rs. 30,000 made a Razia Usman Khatri. It cannot, therefore, be said to arise directly or indirectly from an asset transferred by the assessee to her daughter-in-law. In this view of the matter, we deleted the impugned inclusion. The assessment shall be modified accordingly. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... purchase scheme, then the payment made towards such scheme would be towards the price of the shed and such payment cannot amount to a revenue expenditure. In case the payment is made as rent, then the same is allowable as a revenue expenditure. It is not in dispute that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting. In case of payments of rent, she is entitled to claim deduction even if no rent has been actually paid by her. However, we feel that sufficient material is not available on record on the basis of which it can be ascertained whether the amount claimed by the assessee should be treated as rent or towards payment of price of the shed. In our opinion, further enquiry is needed to arrive at a correct conclusion. We, therefore, set aside the order of the AAC and restore the appeal to his file for a fresh decision. It will be open to the parties to adduce further evidence on the point. 4. For statistical purposes, the appeal shall be treated as followed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... al of refund due to the assessee was of Rs. 10,39,276 and, therefore, there was no justification for levying a penalty for demand of Rs. 3,29,885. It is pointed out that under similar circumstances, Tribunal in asst. yr. 1974-75 had upheld the levy of token penalty of Rs. 1,000. Considering all these submissions, we feel that this was not a fit case for levy of penalty. We accordingly cancel the penalty of Rs. 1.85 lakhs which was upheld by CIT(A). 8. The position of some refund being due to the assessee appears to have been accepted by the Bench. In view thereto it was considered that the assessee could not be considered as in default on account of non-payment of self-assessment tax. The penalty was cancelled against that background. Applying the same logic and in fact following the Tribunal rsquo s finding with which we agree, we see no justification to interfere in the matter. Thus we see no merit in the ground and the same fails. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... be taken at 9 per cent. Rule 1BB of course, does not apply when the property is exclusively commercial. It nevertheless gives an indication of the expectation of yield from residential property and non-residential property. The said rule was inserted w.e.f.1st April, 1979and, therefore, takes into account the exception of yield from commercial properties prevailing in and about the said period i.e. 1979-80. In our opinion, therefore, it would be more realistic in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to adopt 9 per cent rate of expected yield and, therefore, to adopt 100/9 as the capitalisation factor. Accordingly, the order of the CWT(A) stands modified. 9. In the result, the Departmental appeals stand partly allowed. Cross objection 10. Through the cross objections, the assessee rsquo s ld. counsel has covered more or less the same grounds as has been covered by the arguments and facts mentioned above. The cross objections of the assessee, therefore, stand rejected.
............
|
