|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 194 Records
-
1982 (9) TMI 94 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... ted before computing the income available for application. We find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of L.C. Charitable Trust referred to earlier, has now become final vide the report at page 711 in the November, 1979 issue the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal. Since the said decision of the Tribunal has now become final and the settled law, we decline to refer the first question proposed in the application before us. We have considered the order dt. 16th Feb., 1982 of the Tribunal in R.A. No. 707/Bom/1981 but we find that the aforesaid crucial fact about the law on this point having become settled. was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal in that case. Coming to the second proposed question in the application before us, we find that the same does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal under consideration. In any case, in view of our decision on the first question, the second question no longer survives. 10. In the result, the application is rejected.
-
1982 (9) TMI 93 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... ignores the crucial fact once the demand notice is held to be received by the company on 28th July 1980 then there is no further delay to explain. On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances on the record in their totality, we find nothing to come to the conclusion that the directors of the assessee-company in fact knew about the service of the demand notice prior to the date on which they received the duplicate demand notice alongwith the ITO s forwarding letter dt. 28th July, 1980. Hence, we hold that the alleged delay in filing the appeal must be taken to have been satisfactorily explained and so the ld. CIT (A) should have admitted the appeal and disposed of the same on merits. For the above reasons, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct him to admit the appeal as within time and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with the law after giving reasonable opportunities of being heard to the parties concerned. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 92 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee begun manufacture or produce articles as required under section 80J(4) ? We have no difficulty in approving the Commissioner s findings. The assessee s activities had started in the year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 when they reclaimed the land on which the building is to be constructed. That is the starting point of the activity which eventually produced the article i.e., the building. But, the assessee s case rests on a reference to Explanation 2 to section 80J(1). This Explanation introduced retrospectively by the Finance Act, 1980 does not support the assessee s case. This Explanation refers to computation of capital employed only, which, earlier, formed part of rule 19A. Even otherwise, when the assessee has started business activity by the reclamation, there has to be a computation for the assessment year 1976-77. We see no merit in the assessee s contention. 22. In the result, the department s appeal is allowed and the assessee s appeal dismissed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 91 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Order, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... order. In fact, on merits, the Tribunal has given a decision against the assessee. The assessment order is vacated by virtue of the invalidity for not computing the tax payable but it cannot be said that fresh proceedings are barred. As held by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, the proceedings can be started again from the stage at which the illegality supervened and correct the proceedings. The decisions in the case of Guduthur Bros. and in the case of Pratap Rai squarely apply. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., also is directly on the point. 16. Thus, on a careful consideration of the entire facts, we are of the view that the fresh assessment order dated 4-10-1979 is valid and is in accordance with law. The AAC was wrong in annulling the assessment order dated 4-10-1979. We set aside the order of the AAC and remit the case back to him to decide the other grounds raised in the appeal which have not been considered by the AAC.
-
1982 (9) TMI 90 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... est u/s 214. Therefore, according to him, the AAC had misled himself in directing the ITO to allow interest u/s 214. 4. We have looked into the facts of the case and it does not appear that we can subscribe to the submission made by the revenue in this matter. It is true that the two instalments were not made by the prescribed dates of instalment, but we are not able to appreciate why they cannot be considered payments towards the last instalment. If the ITO has accepted the payment as advance tax paid and allowed him credit against the amount found payable on assessment, we do not see why the two payments made in November and December should not be considered as advance-tax paid for the last instalment falling due subsequently. In this view of our finding, we are unable to find the error in the finding of the AAC as has been suggested by the Deptl. Rep. We uphold the finding of the AAC as the correct finding and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 5. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 89 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... in applying the provisions of s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. One has to find out whether there was any contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee justifying in the imposition of penalty under that section. In the instant case, the averments made in the affidavit filed before the AAC are so eloquent and clear that the assessee had never intended to keep anything back from the revenue. Again, it is pertinent to note that on identical facts and circumstances obtaining in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73, the ITO was contented with the imposition of penalty of Rs. 100 only in respect of non-disclosure of house property income of Rs. 100 in the revised return filed by the assessee for that year. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have, therefore, no hesitation in cancelling the penalty imposed under that section. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 88 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... e very much clear in our mind that on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the hands of the assessee on protective basis, in fact, the obiter appearing at p. 429 in the case of Smt. Hemalata Agarwal clearly indicates as to what the Tribunal should do under such circumstances we would, therefore, set aside the order of the AAC under appeal and restore the case once more to his file with a direction to give his decision afresh on all the points, after ascertaining the facts of the action taken by the ITO in the case of the assessee s husband, and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard. 7. In view of the aforesaid decision taken by us, we did not call upon the parties to argue on the merits of the additions made in the assessment. The assessee, however, would get a chance to place her case before the AAC on this aspect of the matter also in view of our aforesaid decision. 8. In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 87 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ords used in a particular provision of a Statute take colour or meaning from each other. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the submissions made on behalf of the revenue that the share of profit of the assessee s wife could fall within the expression any other form of remuneration used in cl. (ii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 64. Again in the expression remuneration has also received the legal meaning in numerous decided cases. The remuneration is an amount received by a person for rendering services to another person. In the instant case, it is difficult to hold that Rs. 20,112 received by the assessee s wife as a share of profit from the aforesaid firm could be treated as remuneration as contemplated in cl. (ii) of s. 64 of the Act. We have, therefore, no hesitation in deleting Rs. 20,112 from the total income of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we did not allow the ld. counsel for the assessee to make alternative submissions. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 86 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... y agreement dated 31-5-1969 purchased from the registered firm Trackparts of India the business together with goodwill, movable properties, plant and machinery, etc., and all book debts or actionable claims due to the registered firm for consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs. It means that at the time of the purchase of the business from the erstwhile firm Trackparts of India, the assessee had paid not only for the immovable and movable properties and the book debts but also for what was going to be realised on the claim made by the erstwhile firm with the firm Jonker-Du Croo N. V., Amsterdam. The amount received in this connection, therefore, in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of India Discount could not be treated as income. The assessee s claim of exemption of this amount of Rs. 1,05,227 was, therefore, admissible and should be allowed. 10. The appeal for the assessment year 1974-75 is partly allowed while the appeal for the assessment year 1975-76 is dismissed
-
1982 (9) TMI 85 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ng heard inasmuch as it was not pointed out to the assessee in the various notices issued by the CIT as to on what particular items and to what extent the depreciation had been incorrectly allowed by the ITO. We agree with his submission in this regard as, in fact, we have already held above that on this account also the order of the CIT (A) was bad in law. 14. The last contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee related to advertisement expenses on imports. He pointed out that the CIT(A) in all probability had relied on the provisions of s. 37(3A) of the Act in allowing only Rs. 15,000 and the CIT(A) has observed in his order that Rs. 15,000 be disallowed. The counsel contended that the CIT(A) had omitted to consider the provisions of s. 37(2A) of the Act. Since we have already cancelled the order passed by the CIT u/s. 263(1) of the Act on other grounds, we do not consider it necessary to deal with this aspect in our this order. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 84 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... the parties show that full and complete enquiry requires to be made regarding this claim again. This enquiry could not be made by the ITO and it is unnecessary to enter into the controversy regarding the assessee s inability to furnish the addresses of Shri Aziz Ilahi or of the parties from whom the electrodes are said to have been purchased. It is seen from the details of purchase of electrodes furnished by the assessee that they were purchased for a total amount of Rs. 35,440 and that it is out of this amount that the disallowance of Rs. 20,000 has been made through part of the purchase seems to have been believed by the ITO having regard to all the facts, therefore, we direct the ITO to enquire into and consider this point afresh after giving a fresh opportunity of hearing and of adducing evidence to the assessee and thereafter to come to his own conclusion afresh on the basis of such material. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as above.
-
1982 (9) TMI 83 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... mport licence, the decisions relied upon on its behalf cannot be availed. On the other hand, in the case of Agra Chain Mfg. Co. the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad took the view that if import entitlements were obtained in consideration of the export of the aluminium chains in connection with the assessee s business, they could not be treated as a bounty or gift or of a benevolent nature for was its giving deponent on the gracious and liberal attitude of the Government and so the assistance received by the assessee were taxable in its hands as profits and gains of business as benefits u/s 28(iv) of the Act. Thus from whatever aspect the matter is looked at, the assessee has failed to establish its case. We, therefore, find no justification or warrant for interfering with the order of the CIT (A) on this point. 11. In the result, ITA No. 2066 (Alld) of 1981 filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas ITA No. 2043 (Alld) of 1981 filed by the revenue fails and is dismissed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 82 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... e come to 8-81 and 7-92 respectively, i.e., well within the norms. The assessee had also explained that the fall in the gross profit rate this year was due to the increase in the sale from Rs. 76,830 in the immediately preceding year to Rs. 25,67,519 during the assessment. The explanation is quite reasonable. On the facts, the proviso to s. 145(1) could not be attracted. Even if for the sake of argument, we were to take it that the said provision was attracted, we find no real basis or justification for sustaining any addition. No addition can be found or justified on the basis of a mere conjecture, surmise or suspicion. On facts, therefore, on addition is sustainable and we hold that the trading results as declared by the assessee are quite adequate and reasonable. 10. In the result, ITA No. 952/Alld/1981 filed by the assessee is allowed and the extra profit addition of Rs. 75,000 is hereby deleted, whereas ITA No. 1084/Alld/1981 filed by the revenue fails and is dismissed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 81 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... e the assessee became suspicious of the financial condition of the respective debtors and whether the assessee continued to make advance even after such point of time. After examining these facts a decision will have to be arrived at regarding the point of time when the respective debts could be held to have become bad. We have already held above that while coming to such a conclusion, the continuance of any legal proceedings, though relevant, would not be a decisive factor. In the case of Sterling General Insurance Company, it will be necessary for the ITO to give a finding as to when the debt had actually become irrecoverable and then, if necessary, to follow the procedure laid down in s. 155(6) of the Act. 6. To enable the ITO to carry out the above directions, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the matter back to his file for his reconsideration and for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 80 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... d the conclusion reached by the AAC in the assessment appeals, namely, that the assessee HUF could be assessed only in respect of the salary income, property income and bank interests in the past and that the business income was to be assessed separately in the hands of the 3 members of the assessee HUF. The observation of the ITO that the correct status of the assessee should be that of an AOP was also rightly held by the AAC to be incorrect. We also uphold the order of the AAC setting aside the two assessments made by the ITO, for the assessment years in question directing the ITO to reframe the assessment by recomputing the correct total income assessable in the hands of the assessee HUF, the business income being assessed in the hands of the 3 members of the assessee HUF individually. 8. In the result, ITA Nos. 825 and 826 (All) of 1978-79 fail and are dismissed. ITA No. 827 (All) of 1978-79 also fails in substance and is dismissed in the light of our above observations.
-
1982 (9) TMI 79 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... She had also the capacity to advance the amount as is proved form the withdrawal of Rs. 12,000 by her from that firm in the asst. yrs. 1973-74. Her version is also supported by the statement of her husband. It also cannot be lightly brushed aside that she might be having some cash with her which she might have also deposited with the assessee firm as she was married only a few years before. There is nothing on the record to suggest any contrary view to be taken in this case. In any case, if the lady is not able to explain the source of the funds in her hands, the proper course would be for the department to proceed against her rather than treat it as the assessee s from the other sources. The assessee, in this regard, has discharged its burden not only to identify the creditor but also to prove her creditworthiness and the genuineness of the entry. We, therefore, delete both the addition of Rs. 13,855 and Rs. 21,748 from the assessment. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 78 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... led on 28thFeb., 1977 within less than one month thereafter. Similarly, the last extension application in respect of the return for the asst. yr. 1977-78 is stated to have been filed by the assessee on 30th Nov., 1977, whereas the return was filed on 27th Dec., 1977 against after less than one month. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid discussion, the authorities were not justified in imposing and confirming penalties and accordingly their orders are set aside. The matter for both the assessment years is restored to the ITO to enquire about the extension applications said to have been moved by the assessee and to decide the question of imposition of penalties under s. 271(1)(a) afresh in accordance with law after giving a further opportunity of hearing to the assessee to establish reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the returns. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1982 (9) TMI 77 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
High Court, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... , in the light of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Madho Prasad s case. There is, therefore, no question of clubbing the income of Smt. Suhasini Singh with the income of her husband from a firm in which she was herself not a partner. That issue, in our opinion, is entirely irrelevant. Similarly, we also do not find any merit in the last contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the ITO having not rectified the assessments for the subsequent two years, was not entitled to rectify the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77. The principle of res judicata does not apply to the income-tax proceedings and, in any case, he did not only initiate such an action for those years and not that he gave a categorical finding that section 154 did not apply to those assessment years. In our opinion, therefore, the provisions of section 154 have been rightly applied to the present case and we confirm the order of the ITO. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 76 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... at income must arise as a result of the transfer and not in some manner connected with it. The High Court explained that though entering into a partnership with the help of gifted funds has a connection with the gift but its income does not arise as a result of the gift and the income arose only because the other partners had agreed to take the individual s wife as a partner and had allowed her to contribute to the capital of the firm and further share of profits arose primarily because the partnership made a profit and all this was not a result of the gift. Bearing in mind these principles, we see no justification for clubbing of the income of the two daughters-in-law of the assessee under s. 64(1)(vi) in the three assessment years by the ITO. We delete the additions on account of the share of income of two daughters-in-law out of the assessee s income computed for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1979-80 and allow the appeals of the assessee. 7. All the three appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 75 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Accounting Year, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... d by the company in general meeting or by its Board of directors, shall not have any effect unless approved by the Central Government and the amendment shall become void if, and in so far as, it is disapproved by the Government. Consequently, after taking note of the above two provisions of the Act, we hold that the distinction made out on behalf of the assessee is without any difference. 7. It follows from the discussion above that the liability for extra remuneration and free house perquisite, as the case may be, in respect or the two directors relating to this year and/or the earlier year did not accrue or arise in the accounting period ended on 30-6-1971 and the action of the ITO in disallowing the impugned three amounts which disallowance is sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in order. The three grounds of the assessee fail. 8. This para is not reproduced here as it involves a minor issue. 9. The assessee having failed on all the grounds, its appeal is dismissed.
....
|
