|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 231 Records
-
1989 (4) TMI 133 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... gh it can be said that the ratio enunciated by the Delhi High Court may become applicable to valuation of all other properties. That means according to me that in respect of properties covered by r. 1BB, the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court on the binding nature of the rules on the Valuation Officer cannot arise because in such cases the question of the WTO referring the valuation to the Valuation Officer cannot arise. Therefore, my opinion on the first point of difference of opinion is in the negative. It, therefore, follows that the direction given by the AAC in the present case that value of the property at No. 2, Panch Sheel Marg,New Delhi, should be determined in accordance with r. 1BB of the WT Rules is not erroneous. This is my opinion on the second question. 12. As a result, I agree with the conclusions reached by the learned Judicial Member. 13. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for disposal of the appeal according to the opinion of the majority.
-
1989 (4) TMI 132 - ITAT DELHI-E
Valuation Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... he Delhi High Court may become applicable to valuation of all other properties. That means according to me that in respect of properties covered by Rule 1BB, the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court on the binding nature of the rules on the Valuation Officer cannot arise because in such cases the question of the Wealth-tax Officer referring the valuation to the Valuation Officer cannot arise. Therefore my opinion on the first point of difference of opinion is in the negative. It therefore follows that the direction given by the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner in the present case that value of the property at No. 2, Panch Sheel Marg,New Delhishould be determined in accordance with Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules is not erroneous. This is my opinion on the second question. 12. As a result, I agree with the conclusions reached by the learned Judicial Member. 13. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for disposal of the appeal according to the opinion of the majority.
-
1989 (4) TMI 131 - ITAT DELHI-E
Assessment Year, Certain Assets, Closely Held Company, Exemption From Wealth Tax, Factory Building
-
1989 (4) TMI 130 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... ot accrue to it and should be deleted on the ground that after the suit was filed, the right to obtain interest became dependent upon the discretion of the Court. This point was raised not in the regular grounds of appeal, but by way of additional ground. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and deleted the interest accepting the legal position and this deletion was confirmed by the Hon rsquo ble High Court observing, as seen from the above, that where a suit had been filed, the right to obtain interest on the principal claimed for the period subsequent to the institution of the suit would depend not on any bargain between the parties but on discretion of the Court under s. 34 of the CPC. Having regard to this correct position in law I agree with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member and hold that the interest pertaining to the period from1st Jan., 1980to31st Dec., 1980did not accrue to the assessee in the previous year relevant for the asst. yr. 1981-82.
-
1989 (4) TMI 129 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... al nor is he justified in saying as a reason that the futility of instituting suits against the farmers did not materialise during the relevant period and therefore the loss was not allowable although instituting of suits for the purposes of determining the allowability of the loss and relating it to the year under appeal had no particular significance on the facts of this case. It was as a consequence of the futility of executing the decrees obtained by the farmers against the dealer Shri Upadhyay that prompted the assessee to file a suit against the Government and it was that suit that was withdrawn or not pursued as a consequence of the legal opinion in the year under appeal. It is that factor that should have determined the reliability of that loss to the year under appeal. This point has therefore to be allowed in favour of the assessee. 6. No other ground raised in the grounds of appeal was pressed at the time of hearing. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1989 (4) TMI 128 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... ils, it would not be possible for any assessee to market them. The AAC is therefore not justified in construing the expression acquiring technical knowledge offered by the assessee by way of explanation as relating only to the manufacture and not to trade. The AAC is also not justified in saying that the volume of purchases did not justify the visits toHong Kongbecause there is no question of fixed quantum of purchases. All that is needed is that the expenditure incurred must have connection with the business and must be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. The assessee submitted that except in the first trip where he stayed on his own, in respect of the other trips undertaken by him, he was staying with his real uncle Shri Chaman Lal Gupta, who was permanently staying inHong Kong. We are therefore of the opinion that the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. We accept the claim of the assessee and allow the appeal.
-
1989 (4) TMI 127 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... effectively. He has also found that two incoming partners Sh. Ziaul Rehman and Ikramul Azim were young men who were actually participating in the business. According to the partnership deed. they were liable to share the losses also liable to discharge the liabilities of the firm. The balance-sheet of the firm would show that it had no immoveable assets and almost. all its assets consist of trade debtors, a major amount of which is in respect of debts due from foreign customers and in the partnership deed there is a provision that an outgoing partner would be entitled only to his upto date capital and would not be entitled to any right of goodwill, etc., of the firm. Under all these circumstances, we are of the view that the learned AAC was right in holding that there was no element of gift in the admission of the three persons aforesaid as partners of the firm. We, therefore, uphold his order and consequently the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-C
Assessment Year, Industrial Company, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Tribunal's Order ... ... ... ... ..... ding that what the assessee required the Income-tax Officer was to pass orders in relation to its claim of being an industrial company and the Income-tax Officer accepted such request and passed supplementary assessment order in conformity with the Tribunal s decision in the earlier years, we find no justification for the Commissioner of Income-tax s order cancelling the ITO s order of 8-8-1983. 20. While deciding this appeal, we are conscious that the revenue was granted reference in relation to the Tribunal s orders in respect of assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, but that would make no difference as far as the year under appeal is concerned because we find no provision under the Income-tax Act by which an order of assessment passed in conformity with the Tribunal s decision can come for review, change or cancellation under section 263 of the Act adversely against the assessee. 21. Accordingly cancelling the Commissioner s impugned order, we allow this assessee s appeal.
-
1989 (4) TMI 125 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee that the house should have been completed before14th Jan., 1981and that this condition was not fulfilled. In reply the assessee merely stated that she invested Rs. 2 lacs/Rs. 2.10 lacs on the construction of said house and did not specify when was this amount spent and what was the stage of construction as on 15th Jan., 1981. The assessee has placed in the paper book, a list of materials purchased and amounts spent between4th May, 1980and21st Dec., 1981but the list without primary evidence is of little help and does not show that any habitable accommodation had come into being within period mentioned above. We are therefore, unable to disturb the findings of the authorities below that it is not established that the assessee constructed a house within the prescribed period., As a result the exemption under s. 54 was rightly denied to the assessee and we uphold the orders of the authorities below on this point. 13. In the result, the assessee s appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 124 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... er of Income-tax (Appeals) for the A.Y. 1980-81. ... B2 7. Copy of the order dated28-5-1984of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the A.Y. 1981-82. .... B3 8. Copy of the order dated28-5-1984of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the A.Y. 1982-83. .... B4 9. Copy of the Tribunal s (Special Bench) order dated25-3-1988for the A.Y.1979-80 .... C1 10. Copy of the order dated18-7-1988of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 1980-81 ..... C2 11. Copy of the order dated18-7-1988of the, Tribunal for the A.Y. 1981-82 ...... C3 12. Copy of the order dated18-7-1988of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 1982-83 ..... C4 13. Copy of the order dated29-5-1985of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 1975-76 .... D1 14. Copy of the order dated29-5-1985of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 1976-77 .... D2 20. Copies of the Draft Statement of the Case were sent to both the sides and the Statement of the Case was finalised after hearing the learned Departmental Representative, there being none on behalf of the assessee.
-
1989 (4) TMI 123 - ITAT DELHI-A
Assessment Year, Business Loss, Deduction In Respect, Excise Duty, Fixed Deposit, High Court, Sales Tax Authorities, Trading Liability, Writ Petition
-
1989 (4) TMI 122 - ITAT DELHI-A
Accounting Year, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... counsel for the assessee also did not place before us any literature on the subject nor did he point out that the actuarial institute has laid down any specific method for an exercise of the type before us. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned Departmental Representative that the so-called actuarial report was not a scientific document and it mentions only vague calculations based on subjective personal assumptions. It is to be remembered that in the relevant accounting period not a single penny is shown to have been actually spent under this head. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned ITO that there was no existing liability which could be provided for in the accounts and about which a deduction could be claimed in determining the assessee s income. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) on this point is, therefore, set aside and the order passed by the ITO is restored. 10 to 35. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1989 (4) TMI 121 - ITAT DELHI-A
Income From Property, Registered Society, Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... arties above but have expressed our views and decisions also at various places and being of the considered view that there was no change at all in the activities carried on by the Trust, which were in terms held to be of non-business nature, we find no occasion to depart from such thinking. On the contrary we hold that after careful thought and considering the circumstances and the pattern of activities in the present year and the earlier years, it must necessarily be held that there was no activity which could be termed as business activity indulged by the Society. Therefore, we hold that the Assessee was entitled to total exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the insertion of section 11(4A) and amendment of section 2(15) did not affect the assessee s case in any manner. 27. Since the assessee succeeds in its primary contention, we are not adjudicating the other issues regarding the computation of income etc. 28. In the result, assessee s appeal allowed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-A
Assessment Year, Capital Employed, Carrying On Business, Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains
-
1989 (4) TMI 119 - ITAT DELHI
Charitable Or Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... urt although they preceded the Tribunal decision in their own case. Having regard to the view which, we have taken, there would be no justification for the learned Departmental. Representative to contend that the order of the Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1977-78 should be followed. We have already detailed the factual and legal basis which constitute important and vital aspects justifying this course of action. It has also been clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association that section 13(1)(bb) could not be attracted in a case of the present nature where we are considering the last head of charitable purpose namely an object of general public utility. Therefore, the income-tax authorities were not justified in holding otherwise. We are, therefore, of the clear view that the assessee is entitled to the exemption claimed under section 11 for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. 8. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 118 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... nce the assessee made the estimates on 8th June, 1981 and 11th Sept., 1981 and since in these estimates the income mentioned was far less than the income which was ultimately assessed the provisions of s. 216 would be attracted. We are unable to accept this submission. Provisions of s. 216 would be attracted only if the assessee was under legal obligation to file the estimate and in such estimate he had under-estimate the income. Since the assessee was under no legal obligation to file the estimate and he was under obligation to file a mere statement, the provisions of s. 216 would not be attracted. The estate which he had filed was in accordance with the legal requirements. There was no legal flaw in the estimate which he had filed. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that provisions of s. 216 of the Act were not attracted. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting levy of interest under the said provision. We accordingly reject this ground. 7. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 117 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Foreign Company, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... ion of this amount are therefore present, and in the circumstances, the order of the CIT(A) cannot be upheld. We, therefore, reverse his order and uphold that the payment made by the assessee to the Indian company is taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act. 5. That takes us with the appeal for the assessment year 1982-83. The grounds of appeal are as under -- (1) The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount in question received by the assessee is neither royalty nor fees for technical services nor industrial or commercial profits taxable in India. (2) The CIT(A) erred in directing the ITO to exclude the sum of Rs. 1,66,50,290 from the total income of the assessee. 6. While giving relief to the assessee for this year the CIT(A) has relied on his order for A.Y. 1981-82. This order has stands reversed. The facts for this year being the same as in the earlier assessment year, we shall also reverse the findings of the CIT(A) for this year. 7. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... ing is not at all comparable with Bronchial Asthma. This case also does not help the assessee. (iii) Bombay Bench E decision in Jyoti L. Gandhi v. First ITO 1983 3 ITD 295. That was a case of mental disability and hence distinguishable clearly from the assessee s case. (iv) Chandigarh Bench decision in Om Parkash v. ITO 1982 1 ITD 1060. That was the case of Pulmonary Tuberculosis with Bronchial Asthma. Obviously, Pulmonary Tuberculosis is a permanent disability which mere Bronchial Asthma is not. This case is also distinguishable. 5. Thus, none of the Tribunal s decisions cited on behalf of the assessee really helps him. The Board s circular also clarified merely (in 1984) that the list given in the earlier circular of 1978 was not exhaustive. If anything, the subsequent circular of the Board listed by way of further examples, cases of deafness and mental retardation. The assessee s case is not covered by that circular either. 6. In effect, the assessee s appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 115 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... s for statistics only. 11. Before parting, we like to say that in this case decision in (1982) 30 CTR (Cal) 50 142 ITR 448 (Cal) has been followed and that already stands discussed by the Special Bench, hence nothing more needs to be said. As regards (1980) 125 ITR 408 (All), the High Court was expressing its opinion on its taxability of receipts from profession , which, according to the High Court, included vocation. As regards (1986) 57 CTR (All) 280 (1987) 163 ITR 716 (All), the Allahabad High Court was convened about the offerings received by an assessee in cash and kind from his disciples. The assessee was a religious preacher and the High Court held the same to be income liable to tax. Both the decisions of the Allahabad High Court are besides the point and warrant no comments, since the issue before us is entirely different. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal by the assessee succeeds partly, since on one aspect of grounds 1.1 to 1.6 the assessee succeeds.
-
1989 (4) TMI 114 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... he light of the orders of the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1982-83 and thereby quantify the deductions in accordance with the directions given by the CIT(A). 25. As discussed above, all the orders of the CIT(A) on this issue have been set aside and the cases have been restored back to the file of the ITO to reframe the assessment orders of the respective year in view of the directions given by us while deciding this issue in ITA 3781/Bom/85 for the asst. yrs. 1975-76. Consequently, for the detailed reason given by us in the said appeal, we set aside the order the CIT(A) for this year as well as restore the issue back to the file of the ITO to reframe the assessment in accordance with the directions given by us in the appeal for the asst. yr. 1976-77. The issue, is, therefore, decided accordingly. 26. In the results (a) Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand dismissed. (b) As indicated above, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
