|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 263 Records
-
1989 (7) TMI 165 - ITAT DELHI-C
Assessment Year, In Part, Partnership Deed, Two Partners ... ... ... ... ..... e set aside. 7. As regards the calculation of income from exports the assessee s contention was that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 27,91,979 was not the net income and whether these receipts resulted in any income could be determined only after finding out the corresponding expenditure. The contention appears to be correct and although the order under appeal does not specifically say so, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner had set aside the assessment only with the intention that the IAC(A) will determine the export profit and then allow the deduction under sec. 80HHC and that such deduction would not exceed the export profit. Such an exercise is necessary to give effect to the Commissioner s order. Since we are setting aside the order as passed by the Commissioner we need not ourselves express further on this aspect of the matter. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside and the assessment, as made by the IAC(A), is restored.
-
1989 (7) TMI 164 - ITAT DELHI-B
Assessment Year, Order Prejudicial To Interests, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Partnership Deed, Registered Firm, Registration Of Firm, Unregistered Firm
-
1989 (7) TMI 163 - ITAT DELHI-B
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... is doubtful whether the rule making authority could have given in the Rules any meaning different from that given in the Act itself. Hence, the definition of the word salary in rule 3 is not exhaustive. 8. We have only to see whether the kind of payment received by the assessee is covered by the specific exclusions, mentioned in the definition of salary appearing in Explanation 1 to Rule 3. We find that the reward received by the assessee is not covered by the exclusions. The reward received is almost an annual feature and is in recognition of the outstanding services performed by the assessee to the employers. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the reward received by the assessee was to be taken into consideration while computing the perquisite value of the rent free accommodation in the case of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we reverse the orders of the CIT (Appeals) and restore those of the ITO. 9. The appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 162 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... two cases) and on 30th Nov., 1974 (in the case of Shri satya Prakash and Sons) right to receive profit or suffer losses in respect of share in IHE firm came to be allotted to S/Shri Om Prakah, Chaman Prakash and Satya Prakash in their individual capacities and, therefore, the respondent-assessees HUF were not liable to be assessed for any share profit for the years under appeal from the said firm on more than one count, independent of each other as discussed in this order above. We accordingly find no occasion to take a different approach than the one taken by the Tribunal on 13th of June, 1983, on the facts prevailing in these cases, in the case of Shri Om Prakash and Sons in respect of asst. yr. 1973-74 which order has been followed by various Benches of the Tribunal in all the three cases except for a contrary view taken by a Bench in the case of Shri Chaman Prakash and Sons in respect of asst. yr. 1973-74. 24. In the result, all the Revenue rsquo s appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 161 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... ) and on 30th November, 1974 (in the case of Shri Satya Prakash and Sons) right to receive profit or suffer losses in respect of share in IHE firm came to be allotted to S/Shri Om Prakash, Chaman Prakash and Satya Prakash in their individual capacities and, therefore, the respondent-assessees HUF were not liable to be assessed for any share profit for the years under appeal from the said firm on more than one count, independent of each other as discussed in this order above. We accordingly find no occasion to take a different approach than the one taken by the Tribunal on 13th of June, 1983, on the facts prevailing in these cases, in the case of Shri Om Prakash and Sons in respect of assessment year 1973-74 which order has been followed by various Benches of the Tribunal in all the three cases except for a contrary view taken by a Bench in the case of Shri Chaman Prakash and Sons in respect of assessment year 1973-74. 24. In the result all the Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 160 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... e because if section 2(15) is applicable to the institution, that institution falls within the meaning of section 11 and if section 11 is applicable without interdiction of section 13, even though the contributions were voluntary, they cannot be treated as income because they earn exemption under section 11 . So by the combined reading and interaction of sections 2(15), 2(24)(iia) and section 12, there is no scope for saying that the contributions received by the assessee can be income taxable under the Income-tax Act, either on the count that they are voluntary contributions (in which case section 12 would apply) or on the count that they form part of the corpus (in which case neither section 2(24)(iia) nor section 12 would apply). 8. It is on a consideration of these factors that I felt I should agree with the conclusion reached by my learned Brother. Per Shri V.P. Elhence, Judicial Member -- I entirely agree with the conclusion and with the reasoning as supplemented above.
-
1989 (7) TMI 159 - ITAT DELHI
Powers Of Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... the Appellate Tribunal in respect of them. Substantial details and materials in regard to them are already on the record. The assessee is also an exporter of engineering goods as in the case of Gedore Tools India (P.) Ltd. The reasons for not urging these grounds at an earlier stage are found to be germane and reasonable. The assessee can also, not be said to be guilty of any latches. We do not agree with the sub-mission of the learned Departmental Representative that at best only the admissibility of the ground relating to the CCS could justify a second look. This is not a case of abandonment of claim and the circumstances attending the tender of the receipt originally as income have been explained. Thus on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the foregoing discussion, we admit the additional grounds. The appeals will now be posted for hearing on merits on original as well as the additional grounds admitted. 34. Ordered accordingly.
-
1989 (7) TMI 158 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... of exploiting commercial assets after constituting a registered firm whose constitution authorised such business. Similarly, the ratio in the case I.S. and C. Machado is also in our view of no help for the reason that direct authorities of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court are there and, secondly, the interest in that case was not relatable to the business against the profit of which the claim of interest was made. 10. The facts incorporated in the learned AAC s order were not shown to be in dispute before us. The registration had been granted and in fact it was for the learned ITO to determine the head of income. We thus agreeing with the reasons of the learned AAC see no merit in hegrounds raised before us. We, therefore, see no justification to interfere also. 11. In revenue s ITA No. 252/Chandi/87, the issue is the same and so are the facts. For our above reasons, we see no justification to interfere for this period also. 12. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 157 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
... ...
... ... ..... e discussed only case of M/s General Fibre Dealers Ltd. From the copy of relevant assessment order dt. 8th Sept., 1981, we find that the total value of Rs. 16,62,088 was added for share holdings in different companies. Out of above amount only shares worth Rs. 20,712 were quoted shares, the balance were unquoted shares of eight different companies. It is also not in dispute that two companies under the control of the assessee as director had suffered heavy losses and their adverse business condition needed whole time attention. The bona fide of the assessee is further established from the fact of filing extension application seeking extension of time up to 30th Sept., 1978. In our opinion, the delay in submission of return, on material on record, cannot be said to be without reasonable cause. We, therefore, see no justification for upholding levy of penalty under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. For the above reasons we cancel the levy of penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee.
-
1989 (7) TMI 156 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... the ITO since the circulars would go to the assistance of the assessee. In the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., the Hon ble Bombay High Court, referring to several decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, as stated above, has held that circulars would be binding on the ITOs and must be given effect to by the Court. 7. In view of these decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and several High Courts referred to above, we are of the opinion that even if there is a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shubh Laxmi Mills Ltd., benevolent circular of the Board has to be followed. As per the Board s circular relied on by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance irrespective of the income in that year. Therefore, we set aside the order of the AAC on this point and direct the ITO to allow the investment allowance claimed by the assessee in terms of Board s Circular No. 189 dt. 30th Jan., 1976. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 155 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... rom the asst. yr. 1973-74 the losses incurred by this company were allowed by the ITO and in the subsequent years the profits made by the KACCL were also offered for taxation. For this reason he was of the view that no cash had been made out for disallowance of the losses. After considering all the facts of the case, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the findings of the CIT(A). KACCL, as observed earlier by us, was a company promoted by the assessee for the execution of the contract work awarded to it. There is a contractual obligation between the assessee and the KACCL and under that the losses or profits of the company were to be borne by the assessee. It was in pursuance of this term of the contract that the loss was claimed by the assessee. Such loss has been allowed in the past. The ITO has not made out a case and we see no reason for disallowing this loss. The findings of the CIT(A) in this regard are upheld. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1989 (7) TMI 154 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... he expenditure is held to be capital in nature, the IAC (Asst) should be directed to allow depreciation. This cross-objection is also rejected since the order of the CIT(A) in this regard is confirmed. We have dealt with this issue while disposing of sixth ground of appeal by the Department. 22. The last cross-objection is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the stand taken by the IAC (Asst) that no extra shift depreciation can be allowed on roads in factory premises. The assessee has urged that they are entitled to extra shift depreciation on roads. It is seen that the claim for extra shift allowance in respect of roads in factory premises was rejected by the CIT(A) in para 13.2 of his order, we find that the assessee is not justified in making this claim by way of cross objection when the assessee had not pressed it before the CIT(A). This cross-objection is also rejected. 23. In the result, both the departmental appeal and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 153 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... er paid by the assessee to its agents under s. 38(3A) of the IT Act on the ground that the commission paid represents sales promotion expenses. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. 3. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) on the finding that the commission paid was not for advertisement or publicity. It was also not in the nature of unproductive expenditure and was part of selling cost for which deletion was made by the learned CIT(A) on proper basis. 4. On the above facts, the Commissioner seeks reference of the above question. Since the above finding is essentially finding of fact, was decline to refer to refer the question. 5. The application fails and is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 152 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... ich clearly state that the amounts paid were honorarium. As regards the claim of conveyance it is clear that the claim is not only for visiting LIC patients but for all his professional work and therefore the claim should be allowed to the extend that it is not considered personal. Hence, the ITO is directed to treat honorarium as professional income and allow conveyance expenditure to the extent that it is not personal. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid finding given by the AAC is perfectly correct. The AAC has rightly accepted that the honorarium received by the assessee from the aforesaid hospitals should be taxed as income from profession, as there was no employer-employee relationship in the case of the assessee. With regard to deduction of conveyance expenses, the AAC has directed the ITO to allow the conveyance expenses to the extent it is not considered as expenses for personal user. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 151 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... tioned grounds of appeal. On the top of it, on merits, the position that emerges is that a senior AO of the Department has held in the meantime that on the basis of clarification given by the Board in the year 1966, no addition was required to be made under s. 40A(5) or s. 37(2A). We would, therefore, hold that benefit of that opinion of the Dy. CIT, Spl. Range-III, which is ostensibly based on the clarification issued by the Board in the year 1966 should be allowed to the assessee in the assessment years under appeal before us. We would, therefore, admit and accept the additional grounds of appeal raised on behalf of the assessee and direct that on the basis of implied concession on behalf of the Department, the additions made under s. 40A(5) and 37(2A) should be completely deleted. Assessee s additional grounds of appeal are, therefore, treated as allowed. 28. In effect, and for statistical purposes, assessee s as well as Department s appeals are treated as partly allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 150 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... ssion of interest was passed, the levy of interest be set aside. This very ground shows that levy of interest, by itself, was not in question, but only because of the procedure having not been followed, it had been challenged. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case relied upon by the assessee, had held that the question whether the case is made out for waiver or remission of interest cannot be subject matter of an appeal under s. 246C of the Act In case an opportunity has not been given to the assessee, then it is open to the assessee to apply to the ITO, if such an order has been made, to show that remission or waiver of interest was justified. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). However, the assessee will be at liberty to more the Revenue Authorities, in case the interest levied is not proper in the eyes of the law, for waiver or remission of the same. The issue is decided accordingly. 33. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 149 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... duction was being carried on by the transferee company, even otherwise, as is evident from a plain reading of the assessment order that the actual and physical transfer of the business has not been doubted by the Income-tax Officer, his only case is that in the absence of a conveyance deed the transfer was not legal. We are, therefore, of the view that the addition made by the Income-tax Officer under section 28 cannot be sustained for the reasons mentioned by us above. We agree with the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 6,00,000 made by the Income-tax Officer though for different reasons. We, therefore, reject this ground of the revenue. Since this ground has been decided by us on the basis of the non-assessability of income u/s. 28 of the Act, we do not consider it necessary to decide the other contentions raised by the parties on this score. 7 to 9. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1989 (7) TMI 148 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... ot short term capital gains as the gain had arisen only during a short span of time i.e about a month. Hence, this ground is found against the assessee. 9. The second ground is regarding interest under s. 217 (1A) This ground has to be decided in favour of the assessee as there was no default on the part of the assessee in making the payment of advance tax as per sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 209 The amount of capital gain, if any included in the total income of an assessee is to be deducted from the total income of the assessee and on the balance alone income tax shall be calculated for the purposes of payment of advance tax. Interest was accordingly not chargeable from the assessee. We, therefore, direct that no interest should be charged on the assessee under s. 217 (1A) IT Act, 10. In the result ITA No. 2518 Bom 1985 of the assessee is dismissed ITA No. 975/Bom/1986 of the Revenue is allowed and C.O. No. 181 Bom 1986 filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 147 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... nd correct amount of loss. Soon after the mistake was discovered, the assessee has very fairly admitted the aforesaid mistake vide its letter dt. 15th Feb., 1982 at the earliest possible opportunity. The Expln. 4(a) to s. 271(1)(c) deals only with cases of positive income only and does not specifically provide for levy of any penalty in case of assessed loss. The word income used in Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) cannot be held to include loss . In view of the fact that the assessee had suffered heavy losses not only in the year under appeal but also in the subsequent year, we are satisfied that the assessee had no guilty intention in understating the value of closing stock. The mistake had occurred on account of inadvertent clerical mistake which did not provide any gain to the assessee nor caused any loss to the Revenue. We, therefore, cancel the penalty imposed upon the assessee and set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). 6. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 146 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ntioned in his appellate order (reproduced above). In the case of Kolhapur Oxygen and Acetylene (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal has held that barges should be treated as ships irrespective of the fact that they are not self-propelled by any mechanical force. However, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the barges owned by the assessee are self-propelled. In this view of the matter, we are in full agreement with the stand taken on behalf of the assessee that its case is much stronger than that decided by the Tribunal in Kolhapur Oxygen and Acetylene (P.) Ltd. s case. For all these reasons, we hold that the barges owned by the assessee should be treated as, ships for the purpose of granting relief contemplated u/s. 80J of the Act. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in setting aside that part of the order of the CIT (A), wherein he has directed the I.T.O. to withdraw the 80J relief already granted on the barges . 10. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
............
|
