|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 164 Records
-
1992 (5) TMI 68 - ITAT DELHI-D
Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... y is consciously suffered by the Govt. to utilise resources for scrutiny and investigations of larger cases. In such cases CIT should only inform Audit that the cases are completed under the Summary Assessment Scheme. The above observations of the Member (R and A) reflect the views of the Board on the subject and are being brought to the notice of all the Commissioners of Income-tax for their information and guidance. F. No. RAI/86-87/DIT dated 26-8-1987 from D.I. (IT and Audit), New Delhi . 19. The aforesaid circular, although issued by the Directorate of Inspection, reflects the view of the CBDT as mentioned therein. I am not going to venture to pronounce whether the aforesaid circular is binding or not, but all that I would like to say is that it reflects the views of the tax administration vis-a-vis the assessments completed under section 143(1). 20. In the final analysis, I quash the orders passed by the CIT under section 263 in both the cases. 21.The appeals are allowed
-
1992 (5) TMI 67 - ITAT DELHI-D
Conveyance Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... or cars, etc. In our opinion, conveyance allowance paid to those employees who are maintaining motor cars is required to be added in working out the disallowance, but conveyance allowance to those maintaining scooters or no vehicles at all is required to be excluded. The term maintenance of motor cars according to us does not cover the last two categories. Inasmuch as, the relevant details of conveyance allowance bifurcated in the three categories, namely, those who are maintaining motor cars, those who are maintaining scooters and those who are getting conveyance allowance without having any vehicle are not available, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of obtaining the necessary details from the assessee and allowing necessary relief. The relevant ground in the appeal is partly allowed subject to necessary verification being carried out by the AO. 18. to 26. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1992 (5) TMI 66 - ITAT DELHI-D
Accounting Year, Essential Ingredient, Late Filing, Mens Rea, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... e CIT (Appeals) in appeal proceedings thought it proper to pinpoint the exact nature of default or offence alleged to have been actually committed by the assessee. It is desirable that while drafting the penalty orders the Assessing Officers should be vigilant to specifically mention the exact nature of the default alleged to have been committed by the assessee and desired to be punished by the Assessing Officer and in recording his findings and decision on the essential ingredients of such default. 17. In the result, (i) Penalty under section 271(1)(a) for assessment year 1981-82 is cancelled and appeal for that year allowed. (ii) Penalty under section 271(1)(a) for assessment year 1982-83 is directed to be levied at permissible minimum, for 10 months. The appellate order for that year is modified accordingly and appeal allowed partly. (iii) Penalties under section 271(1)(b) for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 are hereby cancelled and appeals for both the years allowed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 64 - ITAT DELHI-D
A Firm, Foreign Currency, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ... ... ... ... ..... I refer to the stipulation that the audit report must accompany a return filed under section 139(1) or a return filed under section 142(1)(i). In spite of the aforesaid omissions on the part of the CIT (Appeals) I am of the view that the penalty cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, the return filed by the assessee on 21-11-1989 cannot be treated as a return filed under section 139(1) and it is not the Department s case that notice under section 142(1)(i) was issued to the assessee asking him to file a return. It is only under the aforesaid two situations that a penalty under section 271-B is attracted consequent to the non-filing of an audit report. This aspect by itself can lead to the cancellation of penalty and the examination of a reasonable cause is not at all necessary, in the final analysis the cancellation of penalty by the CIT (Appeals) is upheld but on grounds different to those which had been considered by the learned first appellate authority. The appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (5) TMI 63 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... be a benami of M/s Junach Agencies. There is not even whisper in this direction in the orders of the authorities. We have, therefore no other option but to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct him to rehear this issue, examine the assessment in the hands of M/s Junach Agencies specially with reference to the various dealings of the assessee vis-a-vis M/s Junach Agencies whether any addition was made substantively or not. In regard to the inclusion of the income from M/s Junach Pvt. Ltd., the claim of the assessee that she had been following cash basis does not appear to be appreciated. If the assessee had been following cash system and has been offering income on consultation charges on that basis year after year, the CIT(A) may lock into this aspect as well. The CIT(A) shall give adequate opportunity to the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with the principles of law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed on these terms.
-
1992 (5) TMI 62 - ITAT DELHI-C
Fixed Assets, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... onal use by its directors, has been dealt with in para 63 above and the observations made therein, would equally apply for this asst. year also. 74. The disallowance on account of payment to staff bonus in excess of the limits prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act had been dealt in para 64 above and the observations made therein would equally apply to this asst. year also. 75. The disallowance of payments to clubs, have been considered in para 65 above and the AO is only directed to allow deduction to the extent of subscription payment. 76. The disallowance of Rs. 17,961 out of sales promotion has not been seriously challenged and accordingly, this ground is rejected. 77. The assessee has challenged the levy of interest under section 217(1A). The facts and circumstances being identical in nature as in asst. year 1986-87, the direction given in para 67 above, would be treated as our observation for this asst. year as well. 78. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part
-
1992 (5) TMI 61 - ITAT DELHI-C
A Firm, Foreign Currency, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ... ... ... ... ..... ome under which his firm was assessed or the firm had earned, they had no opportunity of verifying this aspect. The Assessing Officer is only directed to verify this part of the satisfaction of the requirement of section 80RR and if the amount or income so derived has been brought into India either by the partner himself or on his behalf by the firm in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, then the deduction may be allowed in the hands of the assessee to the extent of 25 per cent of the income so received or brought. 6. Before we conclude, we would like to make reference to the Allahabad High Court decision in Brij Raman Das case which was relied upon by the assessee.Their Lordships have clarified that in view of the provisions contained in section 67(2), the nature of the income derived by the firm would retain its character in the hands of the partners as well. 7. In the result, the claim of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observation made above
-
1992 (5) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI-C
Amnesty Scheme, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... mnesty Scheme was larger than the income that remained after the order of the CIT (Appeals). The assessee had made reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. s case where the assessee had surrendered certain income and in the penalty proceedings the Tribunal had found that such surrender could not establish that it was concealed income of the assessee and the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had based its conclusion that there was no concealment on the part of the assessee, based on evidence. In the instant case, in the absence of the revised return filed under the Amnesty Scheme, the assessing authorities have necessarily to indicate the exercise of establishing that the incomes that have been added are really incomes of the assessee. This exercise has not been done at all. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer is bad and the penalty order is quashed. 7. In the result, the assessee s appeal succeeds and is allowed
-
1992 (5) TMI 59 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... 7) 165 ITR 631 (Cal) held that the right to obtain interest on the principal amount due depending on the discretion of the Court had not accrued in the instant case after the institution of the suit by the assessee in the Delhi High Court. 6. Though the learned Departmental Representative urged that the finding of the Tribunal gives rise to a referable question yet we are convinced that in view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in the cases of Soli Pestonji Majov vs. Ganga Dhar Khemka AIR 1969 SC 600 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nathabhai Desaibhai Patel (1972) 29 STC 104 AIR 1972 SC 1545. Both relied upon by theCalcuttaHigh Court in the case of CIT vs. Bengal Rice Mills Co. Ltd., a reference on the proposed question would simply be of academic interest. We, therefore, hold that the proposed question, though a question of law yet is not fit for reference for the reasons stated above and accordingly we decline to refer the same. 7. The application is dismissed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 58 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... that a dispute is going on between the parties and which is still to be decided one way or the other. The CIT(A) has recorded a positive finding of fact to the effect that As per recorded there is nothing to indicate that any investigations had been made in respect of such income in the year under consideration for which the penalty has actually been levied . He has also referred to the further fact that in asst. yr. 1982-83 the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts pertaining to the profit of Rs. 1,25,558 on the sale of rice to the Federation and it could not be said that the relevant facts were discovered by the ITO only through investigations made in asst. yr. 1984-85. It was also noted by the CIT(A) that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) initiated for asst. yr. 1984-85 ultimately came to be dropped. In the final analysis we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) to cancel the penalty imposed on the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. 8. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 57 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... t observed that there appears to be no good reason to curtail the powers of the appellate authority. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. The assessment order did not dispute the fact that the assessee collected the amount as a security deposit. The CIT(A) examined the relevant bills and came to the conclusion that the assessee is not responsible for payment of central excise as it was the duty of the manufacturer and the assessee acted only as a conduit pipe both for collection and refund of central excise. He also examined the Taxi Owners Refund Account. In the light of these facts, we have no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The decision of the Supreme Court, last referred to by the learned Departmental Representative, was in the context of the powers of the first appellate authority and does not relate to the powers of the Tribunal and is not applicable to the facts of the present appeal before us. 8. The appeal by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 56 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... The Assessing Officer also further found that there were no details as to how the aforesaid items had been distributed. In our opinion, after insertion of Explanation 2 to s. 37(2A) w.e.f.1st April, 1976, the definition of entertainment expenditure has been enlarged to a very great extent. Entertainment expenditure now includes expenditure on provisions of hospitality of every king and is not limited only to provision of ffod or beverages. Even if such expenditure is customary it has to be treated as entertainment expenditure. The giving of sweet boxes and dry-fruits boxes, according to us, even on the Diwali occasion is expenditure on provision of hospitality. The details of the name and particulars of the persons to whom these items have been distributed are also not known. The expenditure of Rs. 1,28,696 is also considerable. The disallowance of Rs. 25,000 out of the said expenditure is quite reasonable and is, therefore, upheld. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 55 - ITAT DELHI-A
Authorised Capital, Expenditure Incurred, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... at stress that section 35D was not attracted in the instant case, because the expenditure of Rs. 11,310 was neither at the commencement of the business nor in connection with the extension of the industrial undertaking or with the setting up of a new industrial unit. As observed by us earlier the Revenue is not in appeal in this case otherwise 1/10th deduction allowed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could have been considered for withdrawal. Be that as it may the assessee cannot be worse off than what it was before coming in appeal before the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not say anything more about the applicability or otherwise of section 35D because that is not an issue before us. 11. We, therefore, hold that the Income-tax authorities were justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 11,310 was not business expenditure. This issue is, therefore, decided against the assessee. 12 to 18. These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.
-
1992 (5) TMI 54 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... der gives its direction to the Department to restart the proceedings at the stage of the IAC under the proviso to sub-s. (4) of s. 144B. Therefore, he contended that even if the issue is decided against the Department, a direction may be given to the Department to restart the proceedings under s. 144B. To this argument, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in that case the period of limitation had not expired and, therefore, the Hon ble High Court had given the above direction. In the instant case, even the extended time would expire on 15th May, 1983, by which date no directions had come from the IAC on the first draft assessment order. In fact we have already held that extended time limit cannot be computed in this case as there was no direction from the IAC on the first draft assessment order. 14. In the result, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that the assessment is time barred and thus cancelled. 15. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 53 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... e expenditure claimed by the assessee was disallowed and amounts spent on acquisition of new depots were included, due to oversight and later the same was surrendered when the mistake was discovered. In the instant case of the assessee, the assessee s claim that it bona fide believes that the assessee is liable to make payment to ALIND, we would say, is bona fide belief for honest difference of opinion on the interpretation of the agreement. The difference of opinion on interpretation of an agreement cannot be used at least for levying the penalty against the wrong interpreter. If such a wrong interpretation is given a possibility, we have already discussed the issue in great detail and held that the interpretation given by the assessee is a possible interpretation. 32. Under these circumstances, for the reasons stated herein above and on the basis of the cases relied upon by the assessee, we cancel the order of levy of penalty. 33. The appeal by the assessee stands allowed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 52 - ITAT COCHIN
Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... ention of the Accountable Person and decided the issue against the assessee in the case cited. The learned departmental representative contended that this was a case where the will executed was negatived by the Court. On the other hand, in the instant case of the assessee it is only a private letter written by the deceased to her husband intimating her will to change the domicile. Of course the genuineness of the letter is not disputed. But, the fact that she was a married lady whose family was away in India and her relation with the family was cordial, is indicative of the factor that the expression in the letter cannot be accepted in toto. In our considered view, whatever be her personal choice it has no legal effect in view of the clear provisions of sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Succession Act. 13. For reasons stated above, we hold that the decision of the first appellate authority deserves to be set aside. We order accordingly. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1992 (5) TMI 51 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Acquisition Proceedings, Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Capital Gains, Closing Stock, Factory Building, Fair Market Value, High Court, Registered Valuer, S. 10
-
1992 (5) TMI 50 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Investment Allowance, Rectification Of Mistakes, S. 10 ... ... ... ... ..... ting section 155(4A), the legislature has expressed its intention in unambiguous terms to prevent the misuse of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 32A. Section 155 pre-supposes that the assessee has a choice to adhere to the conditions provided under law and retain the allowance granted or to contravene any of the conditions and forfeit the allowance. In the present case, the assessee has discarded the machinery and also sold the scrap on its own choice, before the expiry of 8 years from the end of the previous year in which the machinery and plant was installed and as such the assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority were perfectly justified in withdrawing the investment allowance granted in respect of these machineries for the assessment year 1980-81. The order of the ld. first appellate authority in confirming the order of the assessing officer passed under section 155(4A) is hereby confirmed and the appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed
-
1992 (5) TMI 49 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Assessing Officer ... ... ... ... ..... s that the delay in seeking remedies for justice in Courts or Tribunals should be accompanied by causes and reasons which should be reasonable or fair or at least plausible in the sense that any ordinary prudent man upon proper fair and judicious consideration would get convinced that there has been no deliberateness or culpable negligence or mala fides in pursuing or prosecuting the remedies provided in law and that the discretionary powers vested in Courts/Tribunals in this regard will not be presumed to be invoked in favour of the defaulting party upon showing any or some causes. 11. We, therefore, do not wish to show our indulgence in this regard. In our opinion, there were no valid, sufficient or reasonable causes or grounds due to which the appeals could not be filed before the Tribunal within the time prescribed under section 24(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. We are, therefore, not admitting and entertaining these appeals and are dismissing the same as barred by time.
-
1992 (5) TMI 48 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Investment Allowance, Manufacturing Company ... ... ... ... ..... s business income. Having done so natural consequences and incidents have to follow and one is prohibited to boggle down one s imagination and still hold that it is not business Income. To do so would be to ignore the inevitable consequences and corollaries following imaginary state of affairs as per requirement of law. It is, therefore, not possible to de-thread any activity like carriage of green leaves as agriculture only. The rule of prohibition laid down by Lord Asquith and consistently upheld and followed by the Supreme Court in several cases is fully applicable. Thus, the Trailers employed for carriage of leaves are part of machinery used in integrated business of sale of tea grown and manulactured. There is no justification for denying claim of investment allowance on Trailers. For all the foresaid reasons, we accept the claim of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to allow investment allowance on Trailers in question. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed
....
|
