|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 195 Records
-
1987 (12) TMI 75 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... er s. 147(a). We also notice that no new information was gathered by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1980-81. Such information was already available on the file for the asst. yr. 1978-79. The Assessing Officer, therefore, no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments under s.147 (b) also In our opinion therefore assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing officer either under s. 147(a) or s. 147(b) was bad in law. Similar is the position for the asst. yr. 1979-80 The Assessing Officer sought to withdraw extra shift allowance on the above two items i.e. transformer and air conditioners for this year also. The issue of notice under s. 148 by the Assessing officer was, therefore, bad in law. The notices issued by her for both the years are quashed and the assessment framed in consequence thereof are also annulled as bad in law. The orders of the CIT(A) on this point are also annulled. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed
-
1987 (12) TMI 74 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
... ...
... ... ..... se of the assessee is consequently hit by s. 13 and there is no doubt about it. The decision to the contrary reached by the AAC is not supportable by any evidence on record. Hence, we reverse the decision dt. 1st Jan., 1986 of the AAC and restore the order dt. 30th April, 1985 of the ITO. 9. We now come to the cross objection filed by the assessee. The first ground in this cross objection states that the appeal filed by the Department is barred by limitation. We find that this matter does not arise out of the order of the AAC. In any case, we have disposed of this point in the departmental appeal above and so we reject this ground as not maintainable. The next ground in this cross objection is that the AAC was right in his decision. This ground is not directed against any grievance of the assessee arising out of the order of the AAC and so this ground is also incompetent. 10. In the result, the departmental appeal is allowed while the assessee s cross objection is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 73 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... verdraft facilities with a bank. So, this case is also distinguishable on facts. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. held that the expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of fresh lot of shares was not revenue expenditure. Respectfully following this decision, we hold that the fee paid to ICI Co. Ltd. in respect of issue and subscription of new shares cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. But the Assessing Officer has not given the break up figures of this amount of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the fee for raising of loans and fee for the issue and subscriptions of new shares. So, the matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore this matter to the Assessing Officer for bifurcating the expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the expenses for raising of loans and the expenses for the issue and subscription of new shares and allowing only the fee towards the raising of loans. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1987 (12) TMI 72 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Appellate Orders, Assessment Year, Capital Employed, Computation Of Capital, High Court, Mistake Apparent From Record
-
1987 (12) TMI 71 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Transfer Of Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... rd to particular assessee under the Income-tax Act. There was.concurrent jurisdiction in the case under consideration before the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Nathmal Vaid. Applying the ratio given by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of B. Nathmal Vaid to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the assessee has much stronger case as no part of the wealth-tax cases were transferred to IAC by the notification under section 127 of the Income-tax Act by the commissioner. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision, we find substance in assessee s appeal. In our view, the IAC has no jurisdiction to deal with the cases in absence of notification. Therefore, we set aside the order of CWT(A) on this ground only. Since we are holding that the IAC had no jurisdiction, we need not discuss the case of the assessee as well as the revenue on merits. 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, while the departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 70 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... at has been held by the Spl. Bench is that though it is a penalty, it is in the nature of interest for not making the payment of sales-tax dues in time. According to the Spl. Bench, the test for allowing such a claim is whether the penalty has been suffered by the assessee inspite of its acting in good faith and in its capacity as a trader. In this Order, A-Bench of the Tribunal observed that the decision of the Spl. Bench in Bisleri s case did not require any re-consideration. In view of the two pronouncements on this issue and the Order of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the asst. yr. 1981-82 where a finding has been given that the payment has been made not for any infraction of law, we would hold that such expenditure is an admissible business expenditure having been incurred by the assessee in its capacity as a trader. The issue is, therefore, decided against the Department and in favour of the assessee. 3. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 69 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Business Income, Textile Industry, Immovable Property, Rent ... ... ... ... ..... cts the inference would be that no business of money-lending was being carried on by the assessee in the relevant year. Interest on investment of surplus fund would be assessable under the head Income from other sources . We accordingly, confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this point. Assessment Year 1978-79 28. For this year the facts are identical with the facts for the assessment year 1977-78 except with one modification which is to the fact that the assessee-company acquired legal title to the immovable property which has been let out. The same two grounds have been raised in the appeal for assessment year 1977-78. For reasons given above, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the fact the rental income was assessable as income from house property and interest income was assessable as income from other sources. 29 to 34. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issued. 5. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 68 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... g of the provision cannot be the basis of the liability. 4. On behalf of the assessee it was also submitted that the amount claimed was a statutory liability on the basis of section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Now that section only enables the Labour Court to direct the reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions or give such relief to him, as it may think fit. It is not as if this section straightway imposes the liability on the employer to pay the back wages. Therefore, it cannot be said that this section imposes statutory liability on the employer. 5. Further the assessee has called the said amount as a reserve and its explanation for doing so is that it had to be kept confidential from the workmen. Thus, the assessee is taking contradictory stands, one for the workmen and another for the income-tax authority. Again the assessee has utilised a part of this amount for the issue of bonus shares. All these show that the claim of the assessee is baseless.
-
1987 (12) TMI 67 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Appellate Authority, Interest In Firm, Share In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... 1)(c) as has been stated in the preceding paragraphs. The inclusion of the value of land for computing the appellants interest in the firm has been confirmed in the quantum appeals by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal. Having regard to these facts, in our opinion, both the appellants are liable to penalty under section 18(1)(c). The CWT(A) has been more than reasonable in reducing the penalty to the minimum. As pointed out by Sri Raju, the learned D.R., the value of the interest declared and the value of the shares shows a difference of more than 20 per cent and that in any case the provisions of Explanation to section 18(1)(c) would be attracted in the present case. For all the reasons stated above, we hold that penalty under section 18(1)(c) is attracted in the present case and has been rightly levied. The order of the CWT(A) confirming the penalties and reducing the quantum to the minimum leviable is confirmed and the appeals of the appellants are dismissed
-
1987 (12) TMI 66 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... It appears the assessee claimed this amount to be relevant for and assessable in this assessment year. It is not very clear on what basis this claim was made and how it was accepted. As pointed out by the learned counsel of the assessee, the transaction in this case was completed before the end of the financial year ending 31st March, 1980. In such a case, if the amount is to be treated as undisclosed income, then it could be the income of the financial year in which it was introduced which means financial year 1979-80. Consequently, the year of assessment will be asst. yr. 1980-81. However, since no indication about the accounting period of the assessee is available for this year or for the earlier year, we set aside this issue and restore the matter to the file of the ITO with a direction that he will decide this issue in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 13. For statistical purpose, the appeal shall be treated as partly allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 65 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... is a procedural section enabling the ITO in his task of computing the total income off the assessee from various heads. The various provisions of the section are for the benefit of the ITO and are not intended to confer any benefit on or give option to the assessee. There are only three exceptions to the general rule that a loss from a source of income may be set off against any other income for the same assessment year under any other head. These are losses arising from speculation (s. 73), losses in respect of sale of capital assets (s. 74) and the losses of the type specified in s. 74(A). It would thus be clear that wherever the legislature wanted to make an exception to the general rule of intra-head adjustment of losses against income, such exceptions have been specifically spelt out in Chapter VI. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no option to the assessee is available under s. 71(1) and we reject the argument of Shri Mehta. 5. The assessee s appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 64 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Deduction, Dividend From New Industrial Undertaking, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... section enabling the ITO in his task of computing the total income of the assessee from various heads. The various provisions of the section are for the benefit of the ITO and are not intended to confer any benefit on or give option to the assessee. There are only three exceptions to the general rule that a loss from a source of income may be set off against any other income for the same assessment year under any other head. These are losses arising from speculation (section 73) losses in respect of sale of capital assets (section 74) and the losses of the type specified in section 74(1). It would thus be clear that wherever the Legislature wanted to make an exception to the general rule of intra-head adjustment of losses against income, such exceptions have been specifically spelt out in Chapter VI. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no option to the assessee is available under section 71(1) and we reject the argument of Shri Mehta. . The assessee s appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 63 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Capital Gains, Gold Bonds, Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... pears the assessee claimed this amount to be relevant for and assessable in this assessment year. It is not very clear on what basis this claim was made and how it was accepted. As pointed out by the learned counsel of the assessee, the transaction in this case was completed before the end of the financial year ending 31st March, 1980. In such a case, if the amount is to be treated as undisclosed income, then it could be the income of the financial year in which it was introduced which means financial year 1979-80. Consequently, the year of assessment will be assessment year 1980-81. However, since no indication about the accounting period of the assessee is available for this year or for the earlier year, we set aside this issue and restore the matter to the file of the ITO with a direction that he will decide this issue in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 13. For statistical purpose, the appeal shall be treated as partly allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 62 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Remission Or Cessation Of Trading Liability ... ... ... ... ..... ed here also that the assessee in the application submits that in any view of the matter and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and having, regard to the peculiar circum, stances of the case and the importance of the issue involved, the matter may be referred to a Full Bench of the Tribunal. We have heard the parties on the point. We have taken the different aspects of the matter into consideration. We find that after the opinion of the Third Member has been obtained, there is no other room for controversy which would justify us to refer any part of the matter to a Full Bench. 12. Thus, as indicated earlier, the opinion of the Third Member has been obtained in which he has expressed his agreement with the opinion expressed by the Accountant Member, the amount in question was taxable during the year under consideration. The -order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the point is upheld. 13. In the result, both the appeal and the cross-objection are partly allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 61 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... t showing working of commission received by M/s. Laxmi Trading Corporation. Sidhpur 30. It may be seen that the percentage of commission paid to gross freight earned comes to around 16.34 per cent during the period under consideration whereas a higher rate i.e., 17.38 per cent has been allowed in asst. yr. 1981-82. The rate of commission paid also compares favourably with the payments made in the other years mentioned in the chart. It cannot be termed as unreasonable or excessive to attract the provisions of s. 40A(2)(a) of the Act. 31. We being of the view that the payment of commission is allowable in full direct the ITO to do so. 32. The last ground in the appeal pertains to the charging of interest under s. 215/217 of the IT Act. It however transpired at the time of hearing that this issue did not arise out of the orders of either the ITO or the CIT(A). We accordingly decline to entertain it at this stage and reject the same. 33. As a result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 60 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... note that even if we take into consideration the proviso to sub s (2) of s. 164 of the Act, which was inserted from 1st April, 1985 that proviso talks about the provisions contained in cls. (c) or (d) of sub-s. (1) of s. 13 of the Act. If the provisions of cl. (c) or (d) of sub-s (1) of s. 13 of the Act are attracted, then, the relevant income of the trust has to be taxed at maximum marginal rate. However, since in the instant case, the assessee is not entitled to exemption under s. 11 pr 12 of the Act, by virtue of the provisions contained in cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 13 of the Act, its income cannot be charged at the maximum marginal rate. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the AAC directing the ITO to tax the income of the assessee trust at the rates specified for an AOP as provided under s. 164(2) of the Act. We have therefore, no hesitation in upholding the order of the AAC under appeal. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 59 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... n in the case of Kum. Manna G. Sarabhai and are of the view that the assessee cannot get any support therefrom as in that case, the Hon ble High Court was considering certain provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances obtaining in that case. Since the provisions of the Act, with which we are concerned in the present appeal have no bearing to the provisions considered in that case, certain observations made by the Hon ble High Court have to be read in the context in which they expressed their opinion. We have also gone through certain sections of the Indian Trust Act referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee and are of the view that none of them could further the case of the assessee in the manner the learned counsel for the assessee urged before us. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the GT authorities were fully justified in taxing Rs. 52,744 under the Act. 1. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 58 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Transfer Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... t received by the spouse or the minor child (in the present case it is the case of a major son) but by the HUF. We find force in the submission of the assessee s counsel that the income from property was in fact not taxable at all in the assessee s hands and the ITO s action had been accepted only on account of the smallness of the amount involved. 20. We are also of the view that no mala fide intention can be attributed to the assessee since he closed complete facts in his income and wealth-tax returns for a number of years. He was not expected to repeat this disclosure for times immemorial specially when we now find that the income was not taxable in the hands of the assessee under section 64(2) after the partial partition effected on 12th November, 1974. 21. we also hold that the decision in the case of P. K. Kochammu Amma would not apply to the facts of the present case. 2. We accordingly cancel the penalties for both the years under consideration and allow these appeals.
-
1987 (12) TMI 57 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Capital Gains, Not To Be Charged In Certain Cases ... ... ... ... ..... may observe that the learned counsel for the assessee was fully justified in relying on Circular No. 359 dated 10-5-1983 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes giving clarification regarding the provisions of section 54E of the Act. In the said circular, the Board has expressed the view that if the assessee invests the earnest money or the advance received in specified asset before the date of transfer of asset, the amount so invested will qualify for exemption u/s. 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 . This clearly shows that the provisions of section 54E of the Act are to be interpreted liberally. If the earnest money is qualified for exemption u/s. 54E of the Act, we fail to appreciate why the assessee should be denied such exemption when it had in fact, invested the sale realisations in the rural Bonds within stipulated period. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). . In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 56 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Rayon and Synthetic Fibres - Interpretation of statute
... ... ... ... ..... . 33.In the prior judgment in M/s. Punj Sons (P) Ltd., the Tribunal has adverted to the inclusive definition in the tariff entry. There is nothing in the entry to restrict its application to those fibres of chemical origin or to those used in the textile industry for spinning yarn. We agree with the findings in the earlier judgments which runs as follows - Construed in plain terms, it means fibres which do not occur naturally but which are made by man i.e. other than natural fibres. Examples of natural fibres are coir, jute, wool etc., which are either grown as a commercial crop or occur on the skin of the animals. Slagwool cannot be called a natural fibre in that sense. 34.We hold that the view expressed in the decision in Appeal No. 26/76 M/s. Punj Sons (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna and in (Order No. 523/83-B-I - 1983 E.L.T. 1866) on the basis that the slagwool is a Man-Made Fibre is correct and we accordingly answer the issue posed before the Larger Bench.
....
|
