|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 233 Records
-
1982 (2) TMI 114 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment Proceedings, Initial Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1982 (2) TMI 113 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
... ...
... ... ..... id as required u/ss 207 to 213 of the IT Act, 1961, the interest allowed to the assessee u/s 214 required to be withdrawn. He accordingly made an order with drawing this interest. However, he allowed by this order refund to the assessee of Rs. 65 u/s 244(1A). The net result was that a demand of Rs. 1,952 was created against the assessee. This was upheld by the AAC. 4. From the above facts, it is clear that the issue that the ITO tried to bring within the ambit of s. 154 was highly debatable as there are judicial pronouncements for and against such an action. We have taken a decision on similar set of facts for the revenue in order dt. 27th August, 1981 referred to supra. For the reasons recorded therein and for the reasons given above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as the ITO was not competent to go into a debatable issue and cover it by an order of amendment u/s 154. 5. Appeal allowed. The order of the AAC with regard to s. 154 cancelled and the status quo restored.
-
1982 (2) TMI 112 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Charitable Or Religious Trust, Exemption Of Income From House Property Held Under Trust ... ... ... ... ..... from voluntary contributions and applied solely to charitable or religious purposes from voluntary contributions and applied solely to charitable or religious purposes. This provision was quite independent of section 11 and, therefore, the conditions laid down in section 11 were not required to be fulfilled by the assessee. The learned departmental representative supported the orders of the authorities on this point. 8. After due consideration of the rival submissions and the paper book filed, we hold that section 12(2) was not attracted so far as the voluntary contributions received by the trust were concerned and section 12(1), as it existed in the year of account, exempted such contributions. Therefore, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee and, accordingly, we hold that the authorities were not justified in assessing the voluntary contributions received from Mohini Thapar Charitable Trust. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 111 - ITAT CALCUTTA
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ith regard to the depreciation on forest roads. According to the assessee, the said roads represented buildings on which depreciation was allowable and the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in not granting to the assessee the depreciation allowance thereon. He supported his submissions by referring to the decision of Calcutta High Court in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner (1980) 122 ITR 660 (Cal). On behalf of the Revenue, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was supported. 22. After carefully examining the facts of the case, we feel that the claim of the assessee is correct. The roads, which are built by the assessee in the forest area, are covered by the definition of the expression buildings , as explained by their Lordships in (1980) 122 ITR 660 (Cal). They are also depreciable. Therefore, the claim of depreciation with regard thereto is hereby upheld. Income-tax Appeal Nos. 603, 366 and 367 (Cal) of 1981 3. In the result, the assessee s appeals partly succeed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 110 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Salary, Accretion To Provident Fund ... ... ... ... ..... so there could not be any grievance in including these amounts in the assessment. We are unable to accept his submission that on this ground the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not competent. It is well settled that even though an item is offered for taxation before the ITO, the assessee could on advice claim later before the appellate authorities that the amount was not taxable. We do not think that the department s contention that the appeal is incompetent can be entertained. It was then submitted that in order to accept the assessee s contention, expression like whichever is less should also find a place in the rules. We have given examples from Maxwell and from the Bombay High Court decision wherein the expression or has been interpreted to be conjunctive but did not contain words similar to the expression whichever is less . So, this is not a sufficient ground to accept the interpretation put by the department. 16. In the result, the two appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 109 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Expenditure On Scientific Research ... ... ... ... ..... nditure amounting to Rs. 94,687 on the laboratory equipment and Rs. 1,18,452 in respect of the building. The lower authorities have not denied the assessee s claim that this expenditure was meant for scientific research and that it was of a capital nature. We agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that all the three ingredients necessary to be satisfied for allowance under section 35 have been met in this case, viz., that the expenditure has been incurred during the year that it was of a capital nature and finally it was for scientific research. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 35 in respect of this expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, erred in upholding the order of the ITO, rejecting the assessee s claim. The claim will now be allowed. 4 and 5. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues not covered by the synopsis. 6. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 108 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Mode Of Computation, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... section 55(1)(b)(ii), read with section 48(ii). We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative. 18. This brings us to the alternative contention of Shri Dastur. He emphatically urges that no taxable gain arises under section 45 on the transfer of shares as the computation provisions in section 48 are inapplicable to the case of an asset like a share in a limited company. In this behalf, he relics upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Srinivasan Shetty and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Evens Fraser. We, however, decline to adjudicate upon this issue as the same is not the subject-matter of the reference to this Special Bench. 19. In the result, the appeals filed by the Investment Corporation of India are dismissed. 20. The cases of the interveners, namely, Asbestos Cement Ltd. and Blundel Parmoglaze, involve some other points also. They will, therefore, be decided by the respective Benches before which they are pending.
-
1982 (2) TMI 107 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... allowed even a part of the debt as a bad debt. It is not necessary that the liquidation proceedings in the case of the debtor must be complete at the stage at which it is written off. The most important aspect is whether it can be said that the assessee had lost all hopes of recovering any part of the debt. The debtor had not been able to pay the assessee and its cheque had been dishonoured. It was dragged into liquidation. The assessee was an unsecured creditor. By 1975 it was known that the secured creditors had claims larger than the assets of the assessee. The conduct of the parties is also consistent with the assessee s claim that the debt was bad and the entry made by the assessee, which is a company, in its own accounts writing off the debt cannot be brushed aside. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, I hold that the debt had become bad in the year under consideration and direct that the corresponding, deduction shall be allowed. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 106 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Net Wealth, Debt Owed ... ... ... ... ..... tered. It has, therefore, to be investigated when the earlier agreement actually come into effect. The copy of the Nikah Form does not indicate whether the enhancement of the amount was entered in the Nikah Form maintained by the Masjid Committee and, if so, from what date. This also will have to be investigated. We would, therefore, remit the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the limited purpose of ascertaining the date from which the enhancement of the mahr came into effect and for treating the enhanced amount as a debt from the date from which the enhancement became effective. Ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is confirmed with regard to Rs 1 lakh and with regard to the enhancement of the mahr by another Rs. 1 lakh, the matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the directions above. The appeals will be treated as allowed in part for statistical purposes.
-
1982 (2) TMI 105 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... plained before me lacks the ingredient of making profit . In other words, the activities represented a form of forced saving and a source of borrowing money on interest. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that these activities do not amount to business and so the revenue authorities were right in holding that the loss arose on capital account and was not connected with the business of dealing in grinding wheels and other machine tools. For the same reasons, the revenue authorities were also right in disallowing the assessee s claim to allow the same as bad debt. 6. Regarding the additional ground raised before me, I find that it involves investigation into fresh facts, namely, as to whether, if at all, the assessee transferred a capital asset, and if so, when it acquired the same and when it transferred the same. These facts have not been brought on record. Consequently, I decline to admit this additional ground at this late stage. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 104 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... entative that the business of Cambatta Industries was on the decay. In that case, there cannot be the question of the goodwill. 8. Further, it was not the amount paid for getting the premises of Cambatta Industries as the letter of Cambatta Industries clearly shows that the assessee was to make its own arrangement for show-room and godown, etc., and that the assessee has not paid the amount of Rs. 60,000 for godown or show-room either. Therefore, on that count also, the order of the ITO cannot be upheld. Therefore, I find no substance in the departmental appeal. I entirely agree with the reasoning given by the AAC, and uphold his order. Since I have arrived at the conclusion on appreciation of facts and material on record, I need not refer to the case laws relied upon by both the sides. I may only add that the ITO has not made out a good case for disallowance of Rs. 60,000 on any count. 9. In the result, the order of the AAC is upheld and the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 103 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Penalty, For Belated Payment Of Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ate filed by the assessee on 19-3-1974 was ignored completely by the ITO. In our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals), was fully justified in upholding the penalty, levied by the ITO under section 273(c), for non-filing of an estimate within the time stipulated by section 212(3A). 8. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee made a feeble attempt to point out that under section 273(c), a person who filed a belated estimate was subjected to more harsh treatment than a person who filed a false estimate under section 212(3A). But that takes us into the realm of equity. We cannot be swayed by equitable considerations when the letter of the law is clear. The assessee not having submitted the estimate within the terms of section 212(3A), the penalty was rightly levied by the ITO and the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly sustained the same. 9. In the result, the Commissioner (Appeals) s order is upheld and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 102 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Penalty, For Belated Payment Of Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ate filed by the assessee on 19-3-1974 was ignored completely by the ITO. In our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals), was fully justified in upholding the penalty, levied by the ITO under section 273(c), for non-filing of an estimate within the time stipulated by section 212(3A). 8. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee made a feeble attempt to point out that under section 273(c), a person who filed a belated estimate was subjected to more harsh treatment than a person who filed a false estimate under section 212(3A). But that takes us into the realm of equity. We cannot be swayed by equitable considerations when the letter of the law is clear. The assessee not having submitted the estimate within the terms of section 212(3A), the penalty was rightly levied by the ITO and the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly sustained the same. 9. In the result, the Commissioner (Appeals) s order is upheld and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 101 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... on is clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in that case the company had expended the money for making alterations in the memorandum and articles of association in order to bring them in accordance with the changes brought about in the law relating to companies. The expenditure in that case was not incurred in connection with the increase in the share capital. We find that in identical circumstances, where the companies had incurred expenditure for increasing the share capital, the expenditure was treated to be of capital in nature by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1979 116 ITR 928 and by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. CIT 1979 117 ITR 505. Following the Allahabad and Himachal Pradesh High Court decisions, the revenue s appeal on this ground will be allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed whereas the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 100 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... llow the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Forgings vs. CIT (1980) 14 CTR (P and H) 389 (1980) 121 ITR 793 (P and H) and uphold the levy of interest under s. 139(8) as if the assessee was an unregistered firm. 3. The last objection taken on behalf of the assessee is that the ITO should have himself considered whether the levy of the interest under s. 139(8) in the facts and circumstances of the case calls for either waiver or reduction. In support of the assessee s claim in this respect, reliance is placed on the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Lalit Prasad Rohini Kumar (1979) 8 CTR (Cal) 332 (1979) 117 ITR 603 (Cal). On this issue we are with the assessee that ITO should have examined whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the levy of interest called for either waiver or reduction. We, therefore, restore the matter to the ITO for examining this issue. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... deserved to be upheld. 7. We have considered the contentions of both the parties as well as the facts on record. We find force in the contentions raised for the assessee. We find that there is an apparent conflict between the two sets of P and L Accounts-one filed before the ITO before he made the draft assessment order and the other filed before the IAC before the assessments were finalised. We agree with the CIT (A) that the discrepancy required reconciliation. It cannot be said that the first one was always correct especially when the cash and bank balance therein was less than the bank balance itself. Further, the records of the assessee were not before the ITO and they were relevant materials for determining the capital accumulation in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above reasons, we hold that the CIT (Appeals) was quite justified in the decision that he has taken. Hence, we uphold his order for both the years. 8. In the result, the two appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 98 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... nnection with the established custom or trade of business of the assessee did not amount to entertainment within the meaning of the terms as securing in s. 37. No materials have been placed before us to shown that the department has questioned the correctness of the decision of the Bombay High Court. On the other hand the ld. Counsel for the assessee has produced copies of orders which show that the attempt of the department to obtain from the Supreme Court special leave to appeal to question the correctness of the above said decision was not successful at least in one case. It was in the case of M/s. Allied Publisher (P) Ltd. The fact that contrary views have been taken by some other High Courts does not improve the position. As things stand the position is well settled as regards this Tribunal, which is within the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court. No referable question of law, therefore, arises from the order of this Tribunal. 3. In the result the application is rejected.
-
1982 (2) TMI 97 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... nsidered the contentions of both the parties as well as the facts on record. We find force in the contentions raised for the assessee. We find that there is an apparent conflict between the two sets of profit and loss accounts---one filed before the ITO, before he made the draft assessment order, and the other filed before the IAC, before the assessments were finalised. We agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the discrepancy required reconciliation. It cannot be said that the first one was always correct especially when the cash and bank balance therein was less than the bank balance itself. Further, the records of the assessee were not before the ITO and they were relevant materials for determining the capital accumulation in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above reasons, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) was quite justified in the decision that he has taken. Hence, we uphold his order for both the years. 8. In the result, the two appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 96 - ITAT BANGALORE
Initial Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... bate. The above reasoning holds good even in respect of item No. 2 of the Ninth Schedule. Applying the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the assessee falls within item No. 2 of the Ninth Schedule and is entitled for initial depreciation. In view of the majority decisions referred to above which are in favour of the assessee, we are unable to follow the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. s case. Since we have held that the assessee falls under item No. 2 of the Fifth Schedule and item No. 2 of the Ninth Schedule and is entitled for higher development rebate and initial depreciation, it is unnecessary to consider ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised by the revenue. In the circumstances, we are not considering the other grounds raised in the appeal. Thus, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing higher development rebate and initial depreciation to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 95 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Revision, Orders Prejudicial To Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... his is not going to be found practicable. In this case, when the ITO had no doubt regarding the consideration for the buses he could not be expected to take any protective measure as contemplated by the Commissioner. We, therefore, hold that the direction given by the Commissioner in this case could not be considered to be a valid direction in the eyes of law. 11. The learned counsel for the assessee has also made a submission on the merits of the case and has submitted that even if the consideration was partly for the route rights, depreciation could be allowed on it. We do not consider it necessary to go into the matter and, in fact, we find that the decision of the Madras High Court in G. Vijayaranga Mudaliar v. CIT 1963 47 ITR 853 is contrary to this claim of the learned counsel. 12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the order of the Commissioner is wrong for the various reasons discussed and the same is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed.
............
|
