|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 218 Records
-
1985 (12) TMI 98 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... Court in the case of Ajantha Industries and Ors. referred to above. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in that case that non-communication of the reasons in the order passed under s. 127 (1) was a serious infirmity and the order was invalid. The ld. Departmental Representative brought to our notice an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashiram Aggarwala vs. Union of India (1965) 56 ITR 14 (SC). It may be pointed out that this decision was duly referent to before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries and Others 1976 CTR (SC) 79 (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC). We, therefore, hold that the IAC of IT (Asst.), Patiala, even under s. 127 (A) of the IT Act was not armed with valid jurisdiction for want of opportunity not having been given to the assessee as required under s. 127 (1). Even on this account, the order of the CWT (A) deserves to be sustained. It is confirmed. 19. In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 97 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... gricultural produce to the tune of over Rs. 20,000 and further perusal of subsequent year s account shows that the amount has been transferred to the amount of Bagga Singh. Then there is an account of Bagga Singh himself with the assessee given at pp. 7 onwards on the assessee s compilation, in which sales of agricultural produce are indicated to the tune of about Rs. 40,000 during the year under consideration and even of heavier amounts with another concern of Sirsa. The assessee in the instant case has substantiated not only the identity of the depositor but also his capacity and genuineness of the credit. Unfortunately, ince Kala Singh died, only evidence on which a reliance can be placed was statement of Bagga Singh S/o. Kala Singh. Totality of circumstances, if taken in to consideration, and statement read in its entirety, no addition on this account was warranted. The action of the CIT (A), therefore, in this regard is reversed. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 96 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ffective for the asst. yr. 1985-86, have been held to be procedural and retrospective in nature by their Lordships. We have extracted the relevant observations in our order of even date in ITR. No. 732/Chandi/83 (asst. yr. 1982-83)in the case of ITO vs. M/s Kanahaya Lal Rameshwar Dass and Co. Patiala. In the light of the same, we should not hesitate to review even our earlier view and confirm the action of the AAC in this case, though for different reasons, i.e. on the basis of Explanation, since Nawal Kishore was partner in the representative capacity of his HUF and the account on which the interest was paid was individual , no addition under s. 40 (b) was warranted and it was rightly deleted by the AAC. 3. In the cross objection, the assessee has only supported the order of the AAC, since the Revenue fails in its appeal, C. O. becomes infructuous and the same as such in dismissed. 4. In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the C. O. of the assessee are dismissed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 95 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Capital Gains, Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... transferred his right to acquire the plot or to get the plot. When these are the uncontroverted facts, it should not hold us to adjudicate that what the assessee sold was not the plot because the assessee never got the plot. If at all he sold anything it was right to get the plot. Then in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah their Lordships of the Supreme Court had held that title to the land and buildings and the plant and machinery and electrical fittings permanently embedded thereon could not pass to the company till the conveyance was executed and registered . In the instant case, therefore, on the basis of uncontroverted facts and mainly the fact that sale deed of the plot which was allotted to the assessee was never executed in favour of the assessee by the Governor but was directly executed in favour of Smt. Jagat Kaur, it cannot survive to be a case of short-term capital gain. Action of the AAC is, therefore, reversed. 6. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 94 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Business Disallowance, Salaries Paid To Partners Of A Firm ... ... ... ... ..... planations 2 and 3 are merely clarificatory in character and must, therefore, govern the assessments prior to the assessment year 1985-86 also. The question of two views theory will also not arise once the Explanations had to be clarificatory in nature and retrospective, being procedural. So far as our decision in the case of Jagan Nath Chanan Ram is concerned it is dated 28-6-1984, whereas the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in the case of N. T. R. s Estate is dated 8-10-1984. In the light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Godawari Devi Saraf (sic) that once a High Court decision on a particular issue is available and that being the only decision, has got to be followed, will not hesitate in reviewing our earlier view and, therefore, though for different reasons, i.e., by applicability of Explanations to section 40(b), which has been held to be procedural and retrospective, the action of the AAC in this case is reversed. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 93 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
... ...
... ... ..... r the assessee. As such, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that the test laid down in s. 24(1)(vi) of the Act is that the loan should have been taken to acquire the property, it does not say whether it is the first loan or second loan or subsequent loan . As such his conclusion that the interest on the borrowings should qualify for deduction under s. 24(11)(vi) for all the assessment years cannot be sustained. On a careful consideration of the case we are of the opinion that the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest on the amount claimed by it or allowed by the CIT(A). 9. In view of our above finding, it is not necessary whether interest was to be allowed 12 per cent on the amount of Rs. 1,31,000. But had it been necessary we would not have confirmed the amount as determined by the CIT(A). As such, we set aside the order of the CIT(A), and restore that of the ITO for all the assessment years. 10. As a result, all the appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 92 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
... ...
... ... ..... it would only be fair to both the sides that the matter should be before whom the assessee could place the above report to support his claim particularly when the AAC has also not dealt with the other facts of the dispute and the contentions specifically raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before him as indicated by us in the first few paragraphs of this order. 19. In the circumstances we are constrained and compelled to set aside the order of the AAC for fresh disposal by him who would touch and deal with all the grounds raised by the assessee before him and after taking into consideration the Departmental report discussed above and after giving both the sides adequate opportunities of being heard. 20. Since this appeal relates to the back year, i.e. 1961-62 we would request the AAC to take up the appeal for disposal out of turn and to dispose of the same expeditiously. 21. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1985 (12) TMI 91 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Deduction Of Tax At Source, Other Sums ... ... ... ... ..... under section 195(2) was misconceived and so is non est in the eye of law. He replied that he had not looked at the matter from that angle and so he could not reply. It is evident from what is stated above that the assessee moved the ITO under section 195(2) regarding a matter to which the said section does not apply. The dispute relating to the rate of tax that can be applied to the total income arises in the assessment of the recipient of the income and section 246(1)(c) of the Act provides for an appeal in case the assessee is aggrieved by the rate of tax applied for computing the tax. That matter is completely outside the purview of section 195(2) and section 248. Consequently, we come to the conclusion that the order dated 2-3-1982 passed by the ITO does not exist in the eye of law. Similarly, the order dated 16-12-1983 is also misconceived and the appeal filed before us is, therefore, equally misconceived and incompetent. 4. For the above reasons we dismiss the appeal.
-
1985 (12) TMI 90 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Advance Tax, Interest Payable By Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... with some other grounds. Coming to the merits, we have considered the provisions of the Act and the facts of the case. The filing of a statement is only a means to an end. The main thing is to collect the tax by the prescribed dates. If a person has paid the tax but not filed the statement, he cannot be said to be indebted to the exchequer. On the other hand, if a person files a statement but does not pay the tax, he remains a debtor and so he is liable to interest under section 215. The ITO is not clear in his order about the charging of the interest as he has not stated either the amount or the manner of computation thereof. He has given full credit for the entire advance tax paid by the assessee and so the assessee never remained a debtor to the Government either at the end of the financial year, much less on the date of the regular assessment. Hence, we agree with the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) and uphold his order. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 89 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Capital Gains, Computation Of ... ... ... ... ..... s. 12.50 was attributable for the right as well as bonus shares. The right and bonus were issued in the same proportion. By example it has been indicated that a shareholder holding 100 shares of the company got 20 shares each by way of right and bonus. Under the said circumstances, the value which the public at large dealing in stock exchange determined for right and bonus at Rs. 12.50 per share was attributable for right as well as bonus equally, Under the said circumstances, Rs. 6.25 can be attributed for the value of right and the same amount can be attributed for the value of bonus. 8. The assessee has sold the right for 4,000 right shares and, therefore, the value regarding the cost of those shares can be calculated at the rate of Rs. 6.25 per share. This conclusion is well supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 651. 9. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed partly and the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 88 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... nts. The scheme of the summary assessment has not been followed correctly when the ITO did not look into the deduction of outright gross receipt and the expenses and particularly the bad debt. 7. The argument of Shri Banerjee is not correct that the issue is covered by the ITA No. 1099 (Cal) 1984. The action under s. 263 for the asst. yr. 1979-80 was taken for low drawing. The action under s. 263 for the year under consideration had not been taken on this ground. Therefore, the assessee does not derive any support either by the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1099 (Cal) 1984 or any other order passed in his case for earlier years. Therefore, this argument of Shri Banerjee is not accepted under the said circumstances, the order passed by the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, and therefore the CIT was justified in setting aside the other of the ITO. Consequently, the order of the CIT is maintained. 8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 87 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... followed correctly when the ITO did not look into the deduction of outright gross receipts and the expenses and particularly the bad debt. 7. The argument of Shri Banerjee is not correct that the issue is covered by the IT Appeal No. 1099 (Cal.) of 1984. The action under section 263 for the assessment year 1979-80 was taken for low drawings. The action under section 263 for the year under consideration had not been taken on this ground. Therefore, the assessee does not derive any support either by the order of the Tribunal in IT Appeal No. 1099 (Cal.) of 1984 or any other order passed in his case for earlier years. Therefore, this argument of Shri Banerjee is not accepted. Under the said circumstances, the order passed by the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and, therefore, the Commissioner was justified in setting aside the order of the ITO. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner is maintained. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 86 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Revision, Of Orders Prejudicial To Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... be correct. The ITO has not been given the agreement between Shri Rampuria and B.C. Kochar, the agreement between the assessee and B.C. Kochar, the letters indicating the inability of B.C. Kochar to pay interest, and the memorandum of alleged partition of 1982 by which the loan was assigned to the lady. If these were not before the ITO and unless these facts are looked into and proper investigation is done, it would be difficult to accept the argument of Dr. Pal that the interest claimed by the assessee was an allowable expenditure. Under the said circumstances, after considering the arguments of both the sides, the case laws and the paper book filed by the assessee, it is concluded that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is correct, that the order passed by the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and, accordingly, the finding of the Commissioner in setting aside the order of the ITO is maintained. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 85 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Assessment Year, Capital Employed, Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Profits And Gains, Setting Up
-
1985 (12) TMI 84 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Powers Of Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... he power to amend includes the power to pass all consequential orders. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the above two mistakes of law requires to be rectified. Ordinarily, I would have held that the question of condonation of delay should now be examined afresh after ignoring the above two assumptions. Since, however, my jurisdiction as a Third Member in this case is limited to my agreeing with the view expressed by one Member or the other, I do not think I have any alternative except to hold that the condonation of delay in these proceedings as a result of the two mistakes will not amount to review of the appellate order dated 21-1-1985. Accordingly, I agree with the learned Vice President. 8. This order will now go the Division Bench for deciding the appeal according to law in accordance with the majority view. 9. In the view I have taken it is not necessary to deal with other aspects of the matter which have been argued at length by the assessee s counsel.
-
1985 (12) TMI 83 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Capital Gains, Chargeability Of ... ... ... ... ..... circumstances and determine the cost of acquisition and recompute the taxable capital gains after giving deduction under section 80T. 7. Before parting with this matter, we may mention that it was argued in the alternative by the departmental representative that the amount in question should be treated as gains of profession. The assessee was not carrying on any profession in the relevant accounting year and as such, the amount could not be treated as gains of profession. It could possibly be treated as income from other sources if it is held that the project report was not a capital asset. However, in the present case, both the assessee as well as the department have treated the project report as capital asset and as such, we have to decide this appeal on the basis that the said project report was a capital asset. The alternate submission does not arise out of the order of the AAC and there is no specific ground in the memo of appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 82 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... advance tax and failure to furnish the return of income for 1971-72. 2. For attending to appeal matters Filing appeal to the AAC against the ITO s order for 1971-72. 3. Conferences and correspondence with Mr. N. Dandkar regarding capital gains tax liability on sale of share and the remittance of sale proceeds. Submitting an application to the tax authorities for tax clearance certificate interviews with tax authorities form time to time in this connection, interview with the IAC of IT and obtaining the tax clearance certificate as desired. . Rs. 12.500.00 Add Airmail Postages 30.00 . Rs. 12,530.00 RUPEES TWELVE THOUSNAD FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY ONLY. In view of the fact that a separate amount in respect of various services rendered not being available, it purely a question of estimate. We are of the view that the CIT (A) was reasonable in giving the relief to the assessee and no further relief is called for. 17. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 81 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Reassessment, Non-Disclosure Of Primary Facts, Income, Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India. ... ... ... ... ..... cent of the technical know-how fees is not taxable under the Act. Even referring to the Board s Circular dated July 1979 goes only to clarify such a situation. Circular No. 202 dated 5-7-1976 is also clarificatory to the extent that no part of the know-how could be said to be attributable such services in India if unless the know-how was developed by acts which are done in India. This only means that no part of the know-how as such should be developed in India. Therefore, if the entire know-how is supplied out of India and certain acts, if they are done with a view to ensure correct appreciation of the know-how by the Indian company then, under no circumstances they could be said to be attributable to any services rendered in India. We are, therefore, of the view that even the 10 per cent income of the technical know-how which has been brought to tax is bad in law and the same is accordingly quashed. 13 to 17. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1985 (12) TMI 80 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Firm, Registration, Cancellation Of Registration ... ... ... ... ..... 220. The view expressed by the Supreme Court in Jagannath Pyarelal s case, that filing of Form No. 11 is not a formality but a procedural and mandatory requirement. In that case their Lordships were faced with the situation where one of the partners did neither sign the partnership deed nor the Form No. 11, while in the instant case the partnership deed has been found to have been signed by all the partners and the Form No. 11 on which reliance was placed by the department contained signatures of two of the partners, while as per the copy filed by the assessee on the basis of which registration was originally granted contains all the three partners signatures. Therefore, on facts the case of the Supreme Court would not apply to the instant case. In view of the observations made earlier, we are of the view that the registration has been wrongly withdrawn and we, therefore, quash the order of the lower authorities. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is fully allowed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 79 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Plant, Business Expenditure, Allowability of ... ... ... ... ..... tion Industries (P.) Ltd. s case, wherein their Lordships stressed the fact that both, according to the accountancy principles and under the mandate in section 29 of the Act, the profits of the year have to be computed by allowing current year s depreciation. The point at issue in that case was somewhat different but in effect the assessee claimed that brought forward losses should be set off before the current year s depreciation because the depreciation could be carried forward indefinitely while the brought forward losses could be carried forward only for eight years. The Supreme Court held that the brought forward losses could not take precedence over the current year s depreciation though they could get precedence over the brought forward depreciation. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, is reversed in this regard and the department s appeal 3876 (Bom.) of 1983 is partly allowed. 25 to 37. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
....
|
