|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 225 Records
-
1986 (12) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT
Whether detenue has a right to lead evidence in rebuttal before the Advisory Board?
Held that:- We are bound by the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in A.K. Roy’s case [1981 (12) TMI 159 - SUPREME COURT], the Advisory Board committed an error in law in denying to the detenu the right to examine the witnesses, rendering his continued detention bad. Upon the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we quash the order of detention, set aside the Judgment of the Delhi High Court and direct that the petitioner’s son be released forthwith.
-
1986 (12) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Valuation - Cost of packing of durable nature and returnable when not includible
... ... ... ... ..... 1984 (18) E.L.T. 31 (Panyam Cements and Mineral Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Hyderabad) and Order No. 732/1984-A in Appeal No. E/130/77-A (M/s. Udaipur Cement Works, Udaipur v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur) are easily distinguishable and hence inapplicable. In the facts of the first of these two, a plea for exclusion of the value of packing on the ground that it is durable and returnable was raised before us for the first time. There was neither a plea to that effect nor evidence on record in support of such a plea earlier. On the facts of that case and in the light off the correspondence between the parties, the case was decided. In the latter, no proper submissions were made about the statutory force at the Cement Control Order. The relevant order was not even placed on record. In fact, the employee of the assessee was unable to state why, at all, the cost of the packing was not to be taken into account for the determination of the assessable value.
-
1986 (12) TMI 109 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... pect of valuing certain properties he cannot refer the matter to the valuation cell for its opinion. As according to us, this is not necessary. Opinion of the valuation cell officer can be obtained when the WTO is unable to estimate the market value of any asset and when there is no difficulty in estimating the value as per rule, there is no necessity, nor the legislature intended, the WTO should refer the matter to the valuation cell. In our opinion, in this case rule 1BB will be applicable and hence we hereby set aside the order of the AAC and restore the matter to the WTO to re-do the assessment as per rule 1BB after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The case cited by the learned departmental representative is not applicable on this issue as in that case their Lordships had held that the valuation cell officer is not bound by the Wealth-tax Rules in valuing the assets. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1986 (12) TMI 107 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... the transfer deed of Rs. 1,96,000 The ld. Competent authority however, had preferred the valuation made by the Inspector to initiate proceedings. The valuation made by the Valuation Cell is to be taken as opinion of expert. The ld. Competent authority has not given any congent reason of not following the report of the Valuation Cell and we also do not find anything in the report of the Inspector as reason for differing with the report of the Valuation Cell. In view of the above, we find that the valuation made by the Valuation Cell Officer should be accepted. Moreover if proper deductions are again allowed to the situation of the land in the land abound by residential unit and much away from the commercial area of Frazer Road the valuation would come to the figure of apparent consideration stated in the transfer deed and the acquisition cannot be made in respect of these transfers. We, therefore, cancel the order of the ld. IAC (Acq.) 6.In the result the appeals are allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 106 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... by the ITO to be false. However by and large, the doctrine of CIT vs. Anver Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), might well be regarded as having been eroded by Expln. I. The penalty under s. 271(1)(C) this tends to become almost automatic, after Expln. I. We are therefore, fortified by the above opinion. However the quantum of penalty should be based on the graveness of concealment. In this case, we find the ITO has imposed minimum penalty. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with this order. We are also of the view that the assessee could not substantiate his explanation of the deposits made in this year and his explanations were not in good faith. This conclusion, we have reached in dependently as no appeal against the order of the AAC in respect of quantum was filed before us an we had no occasion to consider the same in quantum appeal. Hence, we set aside the order of the ld. AAC and restore the order of the ITO. 7. In the result, the departmental appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT NAGPUR
Assessment Proceedings, Gift Tax, High Court, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... tion 59(1)(b). The Appellate Controller s order on this point is, accordingly, upheld. 10. In coming to the second ground we find from the Appellate Controller s order that he directed the ACED to allow deduction of the entire stamp duty and gift-tax paid by the Accountable Person including the rebate available to the Accountable Person under section 18A of the Gift-tax Act. The department s grievance is that the deduction under section 18A in the Gift-tax Act is not available to the Accountable Person under the Estate Duty Act. Section 50A of the E.D. Act provides the relief from estate duty where gift-tax has been paid. There is no reference to section 18A of the G.T. Act under section 50A of the E.D. Act. We accordingly modify the Appellate Controller s order and direct the ACED to allow relief from the duty payable in terms of section 50A of the E.D. Act. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Accountable Person is dismissed while the departmental appeal is allowed in part.
-
1986 (12) TMI 101 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ing under s. 213 of the Act. But if the ITO has refused to grant interest it is stated that he can not grant it except in proceedings under s. 154. Now what is the remedy left to the assessee if interest is not granted to him in the first instance. The only remedy is an application and such an application if treated to be under s. 154 would not be competent. This would result in very dangerous consequences. The entire matter would be in the discretion of the ITO. He can make distinctions which will be with out any practical difference. This Bench has also been taking a view in favour of the assessee, so also was the decision in Anup Engg. Ttd. vs. ITO (1983) 36 CTR (Guj) 195 (1984) 145 ITR 105 (Guj). Upon a consideration of these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee should be granted interest when he has made sincere efforts to comply with the law relating to payment of advance-tax which was not much beyond the due date. 4. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 100 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... r was brought to our notice either at the time of hearing of the appeal or even later. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. A. Kalyanasundharam, A.M. mdash I concur with the conclusion arrived at by my ld. brother though I have a feeling that medical expenses which are reimbursed are purely a staff welfare measure and should not be treated as a perquisite in view of the Board s Circular No. 33 dt. 1st Aug., 1955 by which the Department had been treating provisions of medical facilities to the employee and his family as well as the reimbursement as not a perquisite which circular has not been withdrawn till date (V.S. Sundaram s IT Laws mdash 11th Edition). the special Bench of Tribunal in the case, of Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd vs. Second ITO (1986) 26 TTJ (Bom) 214 (SB) (1986) 18 ITD 226 (Bom) (SB) had also held such reimbursement of medical expenses as a perquisite for s. 40A(5) which order is binding on us.
-
1986 (12) TMI 99 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... change and that the detailed report also for information of the meetings that were held with various industrialists in different countries, cannot be brushed aside as the Court is in the nature of finding new avenues for exports. We have only to uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The next issue is regarding subsidy being reduced from the cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of depreciation and investment allowance as well as reduction under 80J. The subsidy is not a contribution of cost by the Govt. towards any particular asset and, therefore, cannot be deducted from the cost of asset for the purpose of depreciation and investment allowance. However, for deduction under s. 80J in view of the condition laid down by the Govt. for the grant of subsidy unless and until the period of 5 years lapses it cannot be treated as capital reserve. We accordingly restore the order of the ITO on the issue of s. 80J only. 7. In the result both the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 98 - ITAT JAIPUR
Business Income, Chargeable As, Co-operative Bank ... ... ... ... ..... relatable to the banking business and has to be set off only against the business income. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we quash the order of the CIT (A) on this issue and restore that of the ITO. 6. In the cross-objection, the claim of the assessee is that it realises certain amounts as charges on account of issue of duplicate pass-books, other incidental charges on account of sale of various kinds of stationery, which is clearly used for advancement of loan etc. which have been wrongly treated as income from other sources by the CIT (A). On this issue, there is little doubt that the charges on account of issue of duplicate pass-books and certain other charges incidental to the banking activity, like brokerage and on account of sale of stationery and related items are clearly arising out of the banking business and have to be treated as income from banking only. We allow this claim of the assessee. 7. This para is not reproduced here as it involves minor issue
-
1986 (12) TMI 97 - ITAT JAIPUR
Export Business ... ... ... ... ..... ange Regulation Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder. The facts in the present case goes clearly to establish that it is not a case of exports made out of India and, therefore, on the primary requirement itself the claim of the assessee must fail. The argument of the assessee that the Ministry of Commerce has notified the supplies made to ONGC and Oil India Ltd. as deemed exports is for the limited purpose of that Ministry and for encouraging the manufacturers of India to come forward and compete with the foreigners so as to act as import substitution. Unless that particular notification is adopted by the CBDT as the notification so specified in sub-section 2(b) of section 80HHC, we are afraid the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. If it was an intention to treat these as deemed exports even for the Act, a notification to that effect would have been issued in the absence of which the claim of the assessee has only to be rejected. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 96 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... constitute a reasonable cause for the delay that had already taken place in the filing of the appeal. The original decision not to file appeal was taken by the assessee after due deliberation and consultation. This decision was not taken under a mistaken notion but after a proper legal advice. Simply because a different counsel gives a different opinion, the original advice given by the counsel in the normal discharge of his functions cannot be regarded being any or as a mistake. At the best it is a case of two opinions. The assessee rsquo s application for condonation of delay is in our opinion in the circumstances stated above entirely misconceived. As such we see no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the assessee rsquo s appeal in limine as time-barred. Order of the ld. AAC is hereby sustained. 5. In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to go through the or her grounds filed by the assessee. 6. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 95 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... O has stated in this case is that further action for clubbing this income in the individual case of Shri Jhamaklal would be taken separately. It is there that the assessee would have a cause for grievance against his assessment, but that case is not before me, nor was that party before the ITO or the AAC and, therefore, any order passed in these proceedings would neither be binding upon that party nor can it be used for the benefit of that party. The earlier order of the Tribunal does not take into consideration this aspect of the matter at all. I, therefore, am of the opinion that at this stage there is nothing for me to interfere with the order of the AAC. However, after the assessment in the hands of Shri Jhamaklal in his individual capacity is finalised and the income in question is either added or deleted from his hands, the assessee would be at liberty to move for a proper order in this case. Subject to this observation, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 94 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... d not have any substance. 12. Upon and over consideration of the entire language used in the two IT Acts and the relevant authorities on the subject, I am of the opinion that the word employer used in s. 15 of the IT Act has no particular significance in the sense that if it is not possible to find out as to who is the employer of a particular assessee, his income would not be liable to tax under the heads Salaries , when it is clearly a salary otherwise. What I mean to say is that the use of the word employer by the legislature in this connection may be inadvertent and to tax such salaries as could be ascribed to a particular employer because the intention was to tax every kind of income as s. 14 would show and therefore, there was no intention to exclude such salaries, which a person received from any body, who could not be strictly called to be employer of the recipient. 13. Consequently, I am of the opinion that there is no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 93 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... e Income-tax Officer. Two things, however, are necessary before the exercises his revisionary powers. He must firstly consider that the order of ITO is erroneous and secondly that such an erroneous order must show that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When both these things are found by him, it is only then that he can pass an order including an order of remand for the purpose of making a fresh assessment. 14. Here, in the case before us we are satisfied that the learned Commissioner is quite justified to hold that the wealth-tax assessments of the assessee for assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 are both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and therefore according to the above decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court he is entitled to direct the Wealth-tax Officer to frame fresh assessments for both these years. We are unable to find any misappreciation of facts or misapplication of law and therefore we dismiss both these appeals.
-
1986 (12) TMI 92 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Assessment Order, Orders Passed, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... pported by the cheque leaves which shows the endorsement on the reverse by Shri Ganesh who is a partner of the firm. The cumulative effect of these evidences taken together make us believe that the department has a case that these two concerns are benami concerns. 31. However, it is not necessary for us to give a final finding whether they are benami concerns. The Commissioner in his order in paragraph 24 had only set aside the assessment with a direction to the ITO to redo the same afresh after giving full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The assessee is also at liberty to adduce any other evidence at the time of assessment. Under these circumstances, we do not see how the order of the Commissioner on merits could be said to be unreasonable. 32. Although, we have given a finding in favour of the department on the merits of the case, since we have held that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the order under section 263, the appeals are allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 91 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Acquisition Of Immovable Property, Proceedings For ... ... ... ... ..... t be reasonable in respect of a business turnover. Even in ordinary building which is let out, capitalisation at 8 would lead to very unrealistic figure. We are therefore unable to find the rate of capitalisation adopted to be reasonable. 14. Thus, there are three glaring infirmities in the valuation given by the competent authority. Firstly, when the ground floor is valued at Rs. 1 lakh, the fist floor cannot be valued at Rs. 9.5 lakhs. Secondly, the receipts from the lodging business run on the first floor is not an indicator of the value of the building by itself. The receipts are the result of several other facts and these other factors should not be ignored. Thirdly, the rate of capitalisation is unrealistic. When these three factors are considered along with the valuation given by two experts, we find that the value fixed by the competent authority cannot be supported at all. 15. For the reasons, we are unable to sustain the acquisition order. The appeal stands allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 90 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Revision, Orders Prejudicial To Revenue, Valuation Report ... ... ... ... ..... In the case of CIT v. Shriram Development Co. 1986 159 ITR 812, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has prescribely made this point. In that case, there was a High Court s decision on a point which was pronounced after the assessment order was passed. The Commissioner held the order to be prejudicial to revenue because it was inconsistent with the High Court s ruling. A similar argument like the one before the Bombay High Court was taken up that the High Court s order, having been pronounced subsequent to the assessment order cannot be considered for the purpose of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court rejecting the contention pointed out that the High Court s order cannot be part of the records. They represent the law that is to be applied. We hold that these two authorities do not have any application on this issue before us, i.e., where a fact has come into the records subsequent to the passing of the assessment order. 8. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 89 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Hindu Succession Act ... ... ... ... ..... o real dispute or Claim the transaction might amount to a transfer. In support of this proposition he cited the following decisions Sashi Kantha Acharjee v. Promode Chandra Roy AIR 1932 Cal. 600, Savitri Devi v. Kamal Singh AIR 1955 Pat. 456 and AIR 1968 Pat. 486 (sic). The learned departmental representative argued that even regarding 1/4th share in the Joint family property the assessee had got absolute rights in view of ss. 6 and 8 of Hindu Succession Act and so even with regard to the joint family property left behind by the deceased there cannot be any bona fide dispute. However, we are of the opinion that there can be a bona fide dispute regarding the quantum of share entitled to by the assessee herein and under the circumstances we already held that the family settlement is valid as far as the joint family properties in the hands of the father of the assessee is concerned. In the result, we fail to see any merit in either of these appeals and hence these are dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 88 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... ight of this, we are unable to sustain the order of the CIT(A) setting aside the assessment and directing the ITO to carry out certain investigations on the basis of the auditor s certificate, when the auditor s certificate did not call for any further investigation. It is also to be borne in mind that this sum of Rs. 1,03,253 had not come out of borrowed funds nor was there any such allegation in the order of the ITO either. This addition is therefore, not called for and the CIT(A) should have deleted it. We therefore direct that this addition be deleted. 12. In the last ground, objection is taken to the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 in respect of which the ground raised suggests that this sum was disallowed in the assessment of Ice Machinery Mart and for that reason, should have been allowed as a deduction in computing the assessee s income. This ground was not pressed at the time of hearing by the ld. counsel for the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
............
|
