Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1985 1985 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 242 Records

• 1985 (4) TMI 122
  
  Issues:
  1. Addition of income from undisclosed sources - unexplained investment in house construction.
  2. Taxability of capital gains from the sale of a house.
  3. Addition of amount to business income.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The first issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 24,475 as income from undisclosed sources, representing unexplained investment in the construction of a house. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the construction of the house spanned multiple assessment years, with the completion in April 1973. The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) erred in treating the entire unexplained investment as made in the financial year 1973-74. The Tribunal emphasized the provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which allow for the taxation of unexplained investments for a particular year. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the ITO to determine the extent of investment in April 1973 and tax only the unexplained portion, if any, under Section 69 for the assessment year 1974-75.
  
  Issue 2:
  The second issue concerns the taxability of capital gains amounting to Rs. 24,575 arising from the sale of a house. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, citing the construction of another house within the stipulated period. The contention arose from the requirement that the house sold should have been used for the assessee's residence for two years preceding the sale. The Tribunal, relying on legal precedent, held that continuous stay for two years was not essential under Section 54. As the house was used by the assessee for residence in the two preceding years, the Tribunal concluded that the capital gain from the sale of the old house was not taxable, and thus, deleted the addition of Rs. 24,525.
  
  Issue 3:
  The final issue involved the addition of Rs. 500 to the business income of the appellant. The counsel for the assessee did not pursue this point during the appeal, leading to the rejection of this ground.
  
  In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted the addition of Rs. 24,525 as capital gain and the amount of unexplained investment of Rs. 24,475. The matter was remanded back to the ITO for further assessment in line with the Tribunal's directions and in compliance with the relevant legal provisions.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 121
  
  Issues:
  Appeal against addition under section 40A(3) of the IT Act for the assessment year 1976-77.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal was filed by the assessee against the addition of Rs. 40,092 made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The assessee, a registered firm engaged in the purchase and sale of silver and silver ornaments, also made purchases of old silver from petty Sunars in rural areas. The ITO found that cash purchases of silver ornaments from 10 parties were not genuine and invoked the provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT Act due to payments being made in cash. The CIT(A) set aside the matter for fresh assessment. In the reassessment, the ITO accepted the purchases as genuine but maintained that the provisions of section 40A(3) were violated due to cash payments, leading to the addition of Rs. 40,092 to the total income. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's findings, prompting the appeal by the assessee.
  
  Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD of the IT Rules. It was established that the assessee made cash payments under exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, as evidenced by confirmatory letters from sellers and their lack of bank accounts. The Tribunal referred to circular instructions by the CBDT and relevant case laws to support the assessee's position. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof was on the assessee, which was successfully discharged in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the cash payments were justified under Rule 6DD(j) and the circular instructions, thereby deleting the disallowance of Rs. 40,092 made by the ITO and upheld by the CIT(A).
  
  In summary, the Tribunal found that the assessee's cash payments for the purchase of silver were made under exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, in compliance with Rule 6DD(j) of the IT Rules and the CBDT circular instructions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of meeting the requirements of the rule to justify cash payments and ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and deleting the addition of Rs. 40,092 to the total income.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 120
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Grant of investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Grant of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  3. Determination of the acquisition date of Tug No. IV.
  4. Classification of Tug No. IV as a new or second-hand asset.
  5. Whether the Government of India can be considered a "person" resident in India under the Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Grant of Investment Allowance under Section 32A:
  The primary issue was whether the assessee-corporation was entitled to an investment allowance under section 32A for Tug No. IV. The IAC initially disallowed the investment allowance, arguing that Tug No. IV was acquired and installed before 1-4-1976, making it ineligible for the allowance. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, interpreting "acquired" to mean possession and use for business purposes, which occurred after 1-4-1976. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the word "acquired" connotes possessive ownership and actual use in business.
  
  2. Grant of Relief under Section 80J:
  The IAC also withdrew the section 80J relief, arguing that Tug No. IV was a second-hand ship and its value could not be included in capital computation. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Government of India does not qualify as a "person" resident in India, and thus, the previous use of the tug did not disqualify it from section 80J relief. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the Government of India is not a "person" under the Act, and therefore, the relief was correctly granted.
  
  3. Determination of the Acquisition Date of Tug No. IV:
  The IAC deemed Tug No. IV to have been acquired on 31-3-1976, the date of the Government of India's notification. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal interpreted the acquisition date as 1-4-1976, when the tug was actually possessed and used by the assessee-corporation. This interpretation was supported by evidence that income from the tug was credited to the assessee-corporation from 1-4-1976 onwards.
  
  4. Classification of Tug No. IV as a New or Second-Hand Asset:
  The IAC classified Tug No. IV as a second-hand asset because it was used by the Shipping Corporation of India before its transfer. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the previous use by the Government or its agent did not render the tug second-hand for the purposes of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the Government does not qualify as a "person" resident in India, and thus, the tug remained a new asset for the assessee-corporation.
  
  5. Whether the Government of India is a "Person" Resident in India:
  The Tribunal extensively discussed whether the Government of India could be considered a "person" resident in India under the Income-tax Act. It concluded that the Government is not a "person" as defined by the Act, citing authoritative texts and legal interpretations. This conclusion was crucial for granting both the investment allowance and section 80J relief, as it meant the previous use of the tug by the Government did not disqualify it from these benefits.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to grant both the investment allowance under section 32A and the relief under section 80J. It affirmed that Tug No. IV was acquired on 1-4-1976, was not a second-hand asset, and that the Government of India is not a "person" resident in India under the Act. Consequently, the departmental appeal was dismissed as lacking substance.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 119
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of Rule 75 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
  2. Distinction between individual and representative capacity in shareholding.
  3. Applicability of Rule 75 to contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
  4. Limits on employer's contribution under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  5. Previous Tribunal decisions supporting the conclusions.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Applicability of Rule 75 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962:
  The primary issue is whether Rule 75 applies to the provident fund contributions made under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) held that Rule 75 limits the permissible contribution to Rs. 3,000, disallowing Rs. 3,632 as excess. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this view, stating that Rule 75 applies to contributions made to any provident fund, including those under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. However, the Tribunal disagreed, concluding that Rule 75 governs only the 'Scheduled Provident Funds' under Part A of the Fourth Schedule and not the funds under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Tribunal emphasized that different sets of rules apply to these two types of provident funds.
  
  2. Distinction between Individual and Representative Capacity in Shareholding:
  The Tribunal examined whether the managing director's shareholding in his individual capacity should be distinguished from his shareholding as the karta of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s conclusion that no distinction is necessary. Citing Section 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, which separately defines 'individual' and 'HUF,' the Tribunal held that for Rule 75 to apply, the employee must hold more than 10% of the total shareholding in his individual capacity. In this case, the managing director held only 293 shares individually, which is less than 10% of the total shareholding, thus Rule 75 does not apply.
  
  3. Applicability of Rule 75 to Contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952:
  The Tribunal clarified that the rules governing 'Scheduled Provident Funds' do not apply to provident funds under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Tribunal reasoned that if both types of funds were governed by the same rules, there would be no need for separate legislation. The Tribunal also noted that the definition of 'recognised provident fund' under Section 2(38) includes both types of funds but does not imply that the same rules apply to both. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the protections and privileges under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, such as those in Section 10, do not extend to 'Scheduled Provident Funds.'
  
  4. Limits on Employer's Contribution under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The Tribunal examined Section 36(1)(iv), which allows deductions for employer contributions to a recognised provident fund subject to prescribed limits. The Tribunal concluded that these limits are intended for the purpose of recognising the provident fund and do not apply once the fund is recognised. Thus, the limits in Rule 75 do not govern contributions to provident funds under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Tribunal also noted that Section 36(1)(iv) concerns only the employer's contribution, not the employee's.
  
  5. Previous Tribunal Decisions Supporting the Conclusions:
  The Tribunal referred to several previous decisions to support its conclusions:
  - IT Appeal Nos. 1473 to 1475 (Madras Bench 'A', Hyderabad) for assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76.
  - IT Appeal Nos. 1563, 1564, and 1575 (Hyderabad Bench 'B') in the case of ITO v. J. & J. Dechane Lab. (P.) Ltd. for assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81.
  - IT Appeal Nos. 145 and 146 (Hyderabad Bench 'B') in the case of Nath Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. ITO for assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79.
  - ITO v. Raab Pipe Works (P.) Ltd. [1982] 1 SOT 198 (Madras Bench 'B').
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal ultimately held that no part of the contribution made by the assessee-company towards the scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act should be disallowed. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 3,632 paid by the assessee-company as contribution towards the provident fund of its managing director should be allowed in full under Section 36(1)(iv). The appeal was allowed, reversing the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to disallow Rs. 2,132.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 118
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of registration of a firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1974-75.
  2. Cancellation of registration under section 186(1) by the Income-tax Officer (ITO).
  3. Interpretation of the provisions of section 186(1) in relation to section 185(1)(b) regarding registration of a firm.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi-E involved a dispute regarding the registration of a firm for the assessment year 1974-75 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the assessee's claim of registration, citing delays in providing information about the formation of the partnership. However, the Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reversed the ITO's order, granting registration to the firm as all formalities had been completed, and a valid deed of partnership was in place. The AAC's decision was accepted by the revenue.
  
  2. Subsequently, the ITO initiated proceedings under section 186(1) and canceled the firm's registration for the years 1974-75 to 1978-79. The assessee contended that after the AAC's order granting registration, section 186(1) could not be invoked. The first appellate authority, relying on a precedent, held that once registration is directed by an appellate authority, the ITO cannot cancel it.
  
  3. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's order and criticized the ITO for misdirecting himself in canceling the registration for the assessment year 1974-75. The Tribunal emphasized that the ITO lacked the authority to delve into the genuineness of the firm once registration had been granted by the AAC. The Tribunal also rejected arguments that the ITO's powers under section 186(1) were independent of section 185(1)(b) and that approval from a higher authority justified the cancellation of registration. The Tribunal clarified that once section 185(1)(b) was invoked, section 186(1) could not be applied, as evident from the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act.
  
  4. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue appeal and clarified that its decision was limited to the assessment year 1974-75. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the ITO's orders under section 186(1) for other years. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the registration of the firm for the assessment year in question.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 117
  
  Issues:
  1. Disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35B(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to an appeal regarding the disallowance of the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under section 35B(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed to be a small-scale exporter and maintained that it qualified as such under the provisions of section 35B(1A). The dispute arose when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) did not accept the submission, and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the ITO's decision. The Commissioner was influenced by the lack of manufacturing activities carried out by the assessee, noting the absence of a manufacturing license, power connection, or significant machinery. The Commissioner concluded that the assessee mainly engaged in finishing goods obtained from artisans, rather than manufacturing them.
  
  In the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee's counsel argued that the assessee indeed operated a small-scale undertaking involving manufacturing activities. The counsel referred to the trading account, fixed assets schedule showing machinery, and relied on previous tribunal decisions and High Court judgments to support the claim. On the other hand, the departmental representative cited Supreme Court decisions to counter the assessee's arguments.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 35B(1A) and the definitions of "small-scale exporter" and "small-scale industrial undertaking." It noted that the assessee purchased raw material in unfinished condition and carried out various processes like soldering, polishing, and engraving in its factory. The Tribunal observed that the expenses for these activities were reflected in the financial records, and wages were paid to laborers for such work. Additionally, the fixed assets schedule mentioned relevant equipment. The Tribunal also considered precedents where similar activities were deemed to qualify for weighted deduction under section 35B(1A).
  
  Based on the facts presented and the legal interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee met the criteria to be considered a small-scale exporter eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B. The Tribunal directed the ITO to reconsider the assessee's claim in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 116
  
  Issues: Revaluation of closing stock for wealth-tax assessment based on market value exceeding book value by 20%, application of rule 2B of WT Rules, 1957, correctness of AAC's decision to delete additions made by WTO, interpretation of Supreme Court ruling in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers case.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment revolves around the revaluation of closing stock for wealth-tax assessments, where the WTO revalued the stock of a firm based on the market value exceeding the book value by 20%. The WTO applied rule 2B of WT Rules, 1957 to enhance the value of the closing stock to represent the market value. The AAC, however, found this method unwarranted, stating that the Revenue failed to provide evidence to prove that the market value of the closing stock was more than the book value by 20%. The AAC relied on a Tribunal decision and deleted the additions made by the WTO, leading to the Revenue's appeal.
  
  The Departmental Representative argued, citing a Supreme Court decision, that if the market value exceeds the book value by 20%, rule 2B must be applied for revaluation, questioning the AAC's decision. The assessee, on the other hand, relied on Tribunal decisions to support the AAC's stance.
  
  The Tribunal opined that while the Supreme Court's rule regarding market value exceeding book value by 20% is valid, the key consideration is whether the market value was accurately reflected in the books. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue must provide evidence to prove the market value exceeding the book value by 20%. Merely relying on the rate of gross profit is deemed insufficient to determine market value for rule 2B(2) application. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to delete the additions, aligning with previous Tribunal decisions.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the AAC's decision to delete the additions made by the WTO. The judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence to support revaluation decisions and highlights the significance of accurately assessing market value for wealth-tax purposes.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 115
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Change in the method of accounting for export incentives on deemed exports.
  2. Claim for extra shift allowance.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Change in the Method of Accounting for Export Incentives on Deemed Exports:
  
  The assessee, a limited company engaged in the manufacture of conductors and cables, changed its method of accounting for export incentives on deemed exports from a mercantile to a cash basis. The Government's policy on export incentives, including duty drawback, was subject to frequent changes, making it difficult to ascertain the exact amount receivable. The assessee argued that due to these uncertainties, the export incentives could not be considered as accrued income until the claims were processed and approved by the concerned authorities. The IAC, however, viewed this change as an attempt to postpone tax payments or offset income against expected future losses, and added Rs. 17,71,320 to the assessee's income.
  
  On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no significant uncertainty in the Government's policy, as claims continued to be made and paid, albeit with some delay. The Commissioner noted that the payment of duty drawback was almost automatic once the claim was made. He concluded that the change in the accounting method was not bona fide and was intended to reduce future losses, amounting to a carry forward of losses.
  
  In the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee reiterated that the Government had withdrawn export benefits to deemed exports and that the making of a claim did not equate to the accrual of income due to the uncertainties involved. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the relevant decisions, including the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd., where it was held that the change in the method of accounting from mercantile to cash basis for duty drawback and cash assistance was permissible due to the non-statutory nature of the scheme and the irregular and delayed payments from the Government.
  
  The Tribunal concluded that the change in the accounting method was bona fide and justified, as the amount was neither due nor payable at the time of making the claim. The Tribunal decided this ground of appeal in favor of the assessee.
  
  2. Claim for Extra Shift Allowance:
  
  The assessee claimed Rs. 15,50,400 as extra shift allowance, but the IAC allowed only Rs. 10,84,942, arguing that some machinery was installed late in the year and could not have worked for the minimum required days. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, relying on several judicial decisions that extra shift allowance should be calculated based on the actual number of days each machinery worked.
  
  In the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee relied on a CBDT circular dated 28-10-1970, which stated that extra shift allowance should be allowed for the entire plant and machinery used by the concern, irrespective of the actual number of days each machinery worked double or triple shifts. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the circular was beneficial to the assessee and applicable for the assessment year in question.
  
  The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for extra shift allowance, finding that the claim was justified and should have been accepted.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on both major issues, allowing the change in the accounting method for export incentives on deemed exports and upholding the claim for extra shift allowance based on the CBDT circular. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the bona fide nature of the accounting change and the applicability of the beneficial circular for extra shift allowance.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 114
  
  Issues:
  1. Application of section 64 of the Income Tax Act on interest paid by a firm to family members.
  2. Interpretation of section 64 in the context of gifts between family members.
  3. Whether section 64 applies to individuals or firms.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The judgment involves a batch of appeals where the issue revolves around the application of section 64 of the Income Tax Act on interest paid by a firm to family members who are partners in the same group. The interest amounts on gifts were added to the firm's total income, invoking section 64 for assessment purposes.
  
  2. Section 64 of the Income Tax Act pertains to the inclusion of income arising directly or indirectly to family members in certain scenarios. The section covers income related to spouses, minor children, and other relatives. In this case, the gifts were made from uncles to nephews, all of whom were major individuals. The judgment emphasizes that section 64 does not apply in this context as the gifts were between major family members.
  
  3. The interpretation of section 64 clarifies that it applies to individuals and not to firms. Therefore, the addition of interest as income of the firm or the individual assesses was deemed unwarranted. The judgment highlights that the facts presented, including the family tree and details of gifts, were not disputed by the Departmental Representative, and all the recipients of gifts were major individuals.
  
  4. Ultimately, the appeals by the assesses (partners) were successful, and the addition of interest amounts to the firm's total income was deemed unjustified. The judgment underscores that the application of section 64 in this case was not applicable due to the nature of the gifts and the relationship between the donors and recipients, leading to the allowance of the appeals.
  
  This comprehensive analysis of the judgment delves into the issues of the application of section 64 of the Income Tax Act, the interpretation of the section in the context of family gifts, and the clarification that the section applies to individuals rather than firms.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 113
  
  Issues:
  1. Assessment of income from self-occupied and let-out portions of a building.
  2. Claim for vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix) for the ground floor.
  3. Applicability of Supreme Court's decision in Mahamudabad Properties case.
  4. Treatment of ground floor and first floor as separate house properties.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Assessment of Income:
  The assessee, a resident of Indore employed in Kerala, owned a building jointly with family members. The ground floor was vacant, while the first floor was occupied by the assessee's mother. The assessee claimed exemption under section 23(3) for the first floor but returned a notional income of Rs. 583. The original assessment accepted this return. However, upon reassessment, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) included Rs. 834 as income from the self-occupied portion and Rs. 3,740 from the ground floor. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) held that the income for the self-occupied portion should be Rs. 583, as returned by the assessee, and denied vacancy allowance for the ground floor based on the Mahamudabad Properties case.
  
  Vacancy Allowance Claim:
  The assessee contended that vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix) should apply to the ground floor, which was vacant throughout the accounting period. The Department argued that the Kerala High Court's decision in CIT vs. Joy P Jacob supported treating the ground floor as an independent unit, not part of the house property. The High Court indicated that each floor or house in a building could be considered an independent unit for the purpose of vacancy allowance, subject to specific tests.
  
  Applicability of Mahamudabad Properties Case:
  The Supreme Court's decision in Mahamudabad Properties case was pivotal in determining the eligibility for vacancy allowance. The assessee argued that the decision applied only when the entire property was vacant, not when only a portion remained unoccupied. The Tribunal's previous decision and the Kerala High Court's ruling emphasized the independent assessment of floors or units within a building for vacancy allowance eligibility.
  
  Treatment of Separate House Properties:
  The Tribunal evaluated the nature of the building, considering the separate assessment of annual values for the self-occupied and let-out portions by the municipality. The assessee's contention for exemption was deemed unsustainable as the ground floor and first floor were treated as separate house properties. The Tribunal aligned with the Kerala High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal based on the Supreme Court's precedent in the Mahamudabad Properties case.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the reassessment's inclusion of income from the self-occupied and let-out portions of the building, and denying the vacancy allowance claim for the ground floor based on the specific treatment of separate house properties as per legal precedents.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 112
  
  Issues: Jurisdiction of CWT to revise assessment order based on merger with appellate order, Correctness of property valuation by CWT.
  
  Jurisdiction Issue:
  The case involves an appeal by the assessee regarding the valuation of a property for the assessment year 1975-76. The CWT revised the assessment order, increasing the property value to Rs. 1.75 lakhs, based on a subsequent sale agreement for the property at a higher price. The assessee contended that the CWT had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order as it had merged with the appellate order. The CWT rejected this argument, leading to the present appeal. The assessee relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Methar & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1969) 71 ITR 247 (Ker), which held that once an assessment order merges with an appellate order, it cannot be rectified. The Department argued that rectification could be done on matters not subject to appeal. The Tribunal, following the decision in Dwarkadas & Co. (P) Ltd. ITO (1982) 13 TTJ 107 (Bom) (SB), held that a revision in this case was incompetent, as the assessment order had merged with the appellate order. Despite conflicting decisions from other High Courts, the Tribunal upheld the merger principle and found the revision by the CWT to be invalid.
  
  Property Valuation Issue:
  The CWT fixed the property value at Rs. 1.75 lakhs, which was contested by the assessee in the appeal. However, due to the finding on the jurisdiction issue, the Tribunal did not delve into the correctness of the property valuation. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the CWT's order was set aside.
  
  This judgment primarily addresses the jurisdiction of the CWT to revise an assessment order based on the merger with an appellate order and the correctness of the property valuation. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle of merger between assessment and appellate orders, following the precedent set by the Kerala High Court and the Special Bench of the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the CWT's order without delving into the valuation issue due to the jurisdictional finding.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 111
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for multiple flats.
  2. Exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act for interest in Popular Garage.
  3. Market value determination of flats for the assessment year 1977-78.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Exemption Under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for Multiple Flats:
  
  The assessee claimed exemption for three flats under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which allows exemption for "one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh." The Commissioner held that the exemption could be claimed only for one flat, as the three flats were separate units. The assessee argued that the three flats should be considered as one house since they were in the same building. However, the Tribunal referred to the decision in CIT v. Joy P. Jacob [1985] 151 ITR 19, which clarified that separate units in a multi-storeyed building should be considered independent house properties. Therefore, the Commissioner was justified in allowing exemption for only one flat. This ground was decided against the assessee.
  
  2. Exemption Under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act for Interest in Popular Garage:
  
  The assessee claimed exemption for her interest in Popular Garage under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, which applies to industrial undertakings engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods. The Commissioner initially denied the exemption, arguing that Popular Garage was only effecting repairs and not engaged in manufacturing or processing. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the work carried out by Popular Garage, which involved reboring automobile and marine engines. The Tribunal concluded that although the activity did not amount to manufacturing or producing new articles, it did constitute processing of goods. The Tribunal referred to several cases, including Addl. CIT v. Kalsi Tyre (P.) Ltd. [1981] 131 ITR 636, which held that retreading of tyres amounted to processing. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii).
  
  3. Market Value Determination of Flats for the Assessment Year 1977-78:
  
  For the assessment year 1977-78, the Commissioner directed the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) to redetermine the market value of the flats, considering the high rate of increase in property values in Bombay. The Commissioner accepted the purchase price as the market value for the assessment year 1976-77 but held that the same value should not be blindly adopted for the subsequent year. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this direction, emphasizing that the assessee could present relevant materials to the WTO to establish her case regarding the market value. This ground was decided against the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  - The appeal for the assessment year 1976-77 was allowed in part, granting exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) for Popular Garage but denying the claim for multiple flats under section 5(1)(iv).
  - The appeal for the assessment year 1977-78 was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner's direction to redetermine the market value of the flats.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 110
  
  Issues:
  1. Exemption of leave travel assistance under section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Validity of rectification orders under section 154.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Exemption of leave travel assistance under section 10(5):
  The case involved appeals by the department and cross-objections by the assessee regarding the treatment of leave travel assistance for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The dispute arose when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) rectified the original assessments, disallowing a portion of the leave travel assistance claimed by the assessee on the grounds that it constituted taxable perquisites. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that only actual travel expenses should be exempt under section 10(5). However, the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) held that any amount received in connection with proceeding on leave should be allowed as a deduction under section 10(5) without the need to verify if the entire amount was utilized for the trip. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 10(5)(ii) and compared it with section 10(14) to determine the scope of exemption. It was established that the exemption under section 10(5) is not limited to actual expenses incurred and extends to the entire amount received as leave travel assistance for proceeding to any place in India. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision to support this interpretation. Consequently, the rectification orders disallowing a portion of the leave travel assistance were deemed unsustainable, and the department's appeals were dismissed.
  
  2. Validity of rectification orders under section 154:
  The cross-objections by the assessee challenged the AAC's failure to address the validity of the rectification orders under section 154. It was argued that the powers under section 154 can only be exercised for obvious and patent mistakes, not debatable issues. Both the AAC and the Tribunal had taken a different view from the ITO, indicating a debatable issue where multiple opinions were possible. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the rectification orders were not legally sustainable. As a result, the department's appeals were dismissed, and the cross-objections by the assessee were allowed.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 109
  
  Issues:
  Assessment of notional income from self-occupied property under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  Claim for vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix) for a property not let out during the accounting period.
  Applicability of the decision in Liquidator of Mahamudabad Properties (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 31.
  Interpretation of house property as separate units for claiming exemption and vacancy allowance.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin pertains to an appeal regarding the assessment year 1979-80. The appellant, a resident of Kerala, jointly owned a building in Indore with family members. The ground floor was vacant, while the first floor was occupied by the appellant's mother. The original assessment accepted the appellant's return of notional income for the self-occupied portion. However, in a reassessment under section 147 of the Act, income from both the self-occupied and ground floor was included based on the decision in Liquidator of Mahamudabad Properties (P.) Ltd. v. CIT. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) upheld the reassessment, determining the self-occupied and let-out portions separately. The appellant challenged this decision.
  
  The first issue addressed was the appellant's claim for exemption under section 23(3) for the self-occupied portion. The department argued that the claim should have been made during the original assessment and could not be raised in the reassessment. Citing precedent, the department contended that the claim for exemption made during reassessment was not sustainable. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, dismissing the appellant's claim for exemption under section 23(3.
  
  The second issue involved the appellant's claim for vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix) for the ground floor. The appellant argued that since only a portion of the property was let out in previous years and remained vacant throughout the accounting period, vacancy allowance should apply. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision and held that vacancy allowance could be claimed for a part of the property that remained vacant during the accounting period, even if the property was not let out entirely. However, the department argued that the ground floor should be treated as an independent unit, as per the decision in CIT v. Joy P. Jacob. The Tribunal agreed with the department, concluding that the ground floor and first floor should be treated as separate house properties, thereby dismissing the appellant's claim for vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix).
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the reassessment and denying the appellant's claims for exemption and vacancy allowance based on the interpretation of the property as separate units as per legal precedents.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 108
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether a sum transferred to a reserve fund by a banking company can be excluded from the total income of the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
  2. Interpretation of the provisions of the First Schedule of the Act in relation to the exclusion of sums from total income.
  3. Determining the scope of exclusion under rule 1 of the First Schedule regarding items included in the income of the previous year.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin pertained to the assessment year 1976-77, involving the exclusion of a sum transferred to a reserve fund by a banking company from the total income under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The dispute arose as the department contested the exclusion claimed by the assessee, arguing that the transfer did not originate from the total income of the previous year as assessed for income tax purposes. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the exclusion, leading to the department's appeal (para 1-2).
  
  2. The key contention revolved around the interpretation of the First Schedule of the Act, specifically rule 1, which outlines the exclusion of certain items from total income. The department argued that exclusion under rule 1 only applies to income included in the previous year's total income, while the assessee contended that the provision covers 'other sums' not necessarily part of the previous year's income. The Tribunal examined the legislative intent behind the rule and the distinction between exclusions and deductions under the Act (para 6-8).
  
  3. The Tribunal analyzed the language and purpose of rule 1 of the First Schedule in detail. It concluded that the exclusion provision pertains to items included in the total income of the previous year for surtax computation. The term 'other sums' in the rule was interpreted in light of the ejusdem generis principle to encompass amounts akin to 'income, profits, and gains' included in the previous year's income. As the transferred sum did not originate from the previous year's total income, it was held ineligible for exclusion under rule 1. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the department's appeal, denying the assessee's claim for exclusion of the transferred amount from total income (para 8-9).
  
  This detailed analysis outlines the issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's interpretation of the relevant provisions leading to the final decision on the appeal.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 107
  
  Issues:
  - Reconstitution of a firm and reduction of partners' shares leading to a tax assessment as a gift.
  - Determination of whether the reduction in shares amounted to a gift and the adequacy of consideration.
  - Consideration of capital contribution and previous experience of incoming partner in assessing the presence of a gift.
  - Interpretation of the right to share future profits as a property and its relevance in gift taxation.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin dealt with appeals regarding the assessment year 1979-80 concerning the reconstitution of a firm and the subsequent reduction in partners' shares, leading to a tax assessment as a gift. The firm originally had two partners with specific share percentages, but was reconstituted with the admission of a new partner, resulting in changes to the profit-sharing ratio. The Gift Tax Officer (GTO) treated the reduction in shares as a gift and calculated the value based on average profits, interest on capital, and managerial remuneration. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner (AAC) canceled the assessments, stating that the reduction in shares did not constitute a gift due to the incoming partner's capital contribution and active involvement in the firm.
  
  The main issue revolved around whether the reduction in partners' shares amounted to a gift and the adequacy of consideration for the same. The department contended that the AAC failed to determine if there was a transfer and if the consideration was adequate. They argued that the capital contributed by the incoming partner was not consideration to the existing partners and that the previous experience of the incoming partner should not be considered as relevant. The department relied on legal precedents to support their position that a realignment of profit-sharing ratios could constitute a gift.
  
  Conversely, the counsel for the assessee argued that the right to share future profits is not an existing property and, therefore, cannot be considered a gift. They highlighted clauses in the partnership deed and legal precedents to support their stance that the right to share future profits accrues only when accounts are closed, and thus, no present right to gift exists. Additionally, they emphasized the capital contribution and previous experience of the incoming partner as sufficient consideration, citing relevant court decisions.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, aligning with the decision of the Kerala High Court that there was no gift in the case due to the capital contribution by the incoming partner and his active involvement in the business. The judgment emphasized the importance of adequate consideration in determining the presence of a gift for tax purposes, particularly in cases of firm reconstitution and changes in profit-sharing ratios.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 106
  
  Issues:
  - Allowability of expenses incurred by the assessee after the commencement of business.
  - Interpretation of the date when a business is considered to be set up for the purpose of allowing expenses.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Allowability of Expenses
  The assessee contended that expenses incurred after the commencement of business should have been allowed by the lower authorities. The expenses in question were related to the establishment of two businesses by the private limited company, one involving fruits handling and fruit canning business at Simla, and the other being the manufacture of abrasive powder in Kanpur. The assessee argued that expenses from 1st June, 1979 onwards should be allowed, as significant steps had been taken to set up and commence business operations.
  
  Issue 2: Interpretation of Setting Up Business
  The Tribunal considered the distinction between setting up a business and commencing a business. It was noted that the date of incorporation of the company does not necessarily signify the commencement of business. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that expenses incurred from 1st June, 1979 onwards should be allowed, as by that date, the company had set up its business operations. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents such as the case of Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. CIT, which emphasized the importance of distinguishing between setting up and commencement of business for the purpose of allowing expenses.
  
  Precedents and Legal Interpretations
  The Tribunal relied on various legal precedents to support its decision, including cases like Prem Conductors (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Ralliwoff Ltd., which highlighted the significance of defining when a business is considered to be set up. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd., which emphasized that a business unit must be ready to function before it can be deemed as set up. These legal interpretations guided the Tribunal's decision to allow expenses from the date when the business was set up, rather than from the date of incorporation.
  
  Conclusion
  The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the Income Tax Officer to allow expenses incurred from 1st June, 1979 onwards, except for the cost of a specific item considered as capital expenditure. The Tribunal dismissed other grounds raised by the assessee regarding interest charges and surcharge.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 105
  
  Issues:
  1. Reopening of assessment under section 147(b) based on the definition of short-term capital asset.
  2. Legality of the action taken by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 147(b) for the mistake committed in the original assessment.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The assessee, a limited company, acquired a property and later sold it, resulting in a capital gain. The ITO treated the gain as long-term capital gain initially but later reopened the assessment under section 147(b) to treat it as short-term capital gain based on the introduction of the definition of short-term capital asset. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the ITO's action, citing the applicability of the new definition. The assessee contended that the ITO could not reopen the assessment on the same facts available in the original assessment. However, the CIT (Appeals) rejected this argument, emphasizing the relevance of the new definition introduced in the relevant year.
  
  2. The counsel of the assessee argued that the ITO's action was illegal, citing Supreme Court decisions that clarified the scope of section 147(b) in cases of oversight or inadvertence. The Departmental Representative provided specific dates to support the legality of the ITO's jurisdiction under section 147(b. However, the counsel of the assessee countered, stating that the law had evolved post the Supreme Court's decision, rendering the ITO's action illegal. The Tribunal ultimately held that the ITO's order under section 147(b) was not legally sustainable, setting it aside and maintaining the original order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed based on this analysis.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 104
  
  Issues:
  1. Rectification of appellate order based on alleged misunderstanding of observations made during the hearing.
  2. Whether the Tribunal has the power to review its order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appellate order rejected a deduction claimed as interest paid on borrowed monies by the assessee. A miscellaneous application was filed, alleging that the counsel did not present full arguments due to a misunderstanding of observations made by the Judicial Member during the hearing. The Judicial Member expressed doubts about the conclusion and recommended giving the assessee another opportunity to address further arguments. The Accountant Member, however, believed that full arguments were presented, and there was no apparent mistake in the order. The Tribunal noted that while there was a misunderstanding, it did not constitute a mistake justifying the order's recall. The matter was discussed extensively, and the Third Member agreed with the Accountant Member, concluding that the order should not be recalled.
  
  2. The Tribunal does not have the power to review its order unless there are glaring and obvious mistakes of facts or law. The Members agreed that any observations made during the hearing were tentative, and the counsel was not prevented from presenting full arguments. The disagreement between the Members on whether full arguments were advanced did not warrant recalling the order. The Third Member concurred with the Accountant Member that the circumstances did not justify recalling the order. The order was to be decided by the Bench according to the majority view, emphasizing that recalling the order was not warranted under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1985 (4) TMI 103
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Retrospective application of sub-section (5) of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Rectification of the Tribunal's order based on the retrospective amendment.
  3. Interpretation of the term "guest-house" under section 37(4) and (5).
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Retrospective Application of Sub-section (5) of Section 37:
  The primary issue revolves around whether sub-section (5) of section 37, inserted by the Finance Act, 1983 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1979, applies to the assessment year 1979-80. The Tribunal initially did not consider this provision in its order dated 24-5-1984. The revenue contended that this oversight constituted a "mistake apparent on record" and sought rectification.
  
  The Tribunal acknowledged that sub-section (5) should be deemed to have been included in the Act from 1-4-1979, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143. However, the Tribunal also noted that the assessee's accounting period ended on 31-10-1978, before the effective date of the amendment, thus questioning the applicability of sub-section (5) to the assessee's case.
  
  2. Rectification of the Tribunal's Order:
  The Tribunal deliberated on whether the failure to consider sub-section (5) in its previous order constituted a rectifiable mistake. The revenue argued that rectification was warranted due to the retrospective effect of the amendment. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including CIT v. Smt. Eva Raha [1980] 121 ITR 293 and CIT v. Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 679, which supported the power of the Tribunal to rectify its final order.
  
  However, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that no rectification was necessary, as the assessee's accounting year ended before the effective date of the amendment. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "expenditure" in section 37 implies that the expenditure must be genuine and lawful, and since sub-section (5) was effective from 1-4-1979, it could not apply to expenditures incurred before that date.
  
  3. Interpretation of the Term "Guest-house":
  The Tribunal considered the definition of "guest-house" under section 37(4) and (5). The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of guest-house expenses, noting that the accommodation was used by the directors and employees and was located in a remote rural area. The Tribunal initially upheld this decision, following the Madras High Court's ruling in CIT v. Aruna Sugars Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 619, which stated that accommodation used by employees and directors does not constitute a guest-house.
  
  However, the revenue's miscellaneous application argued that sub-section (5) clarified that any accommodation maintained for lodging employees or directors is considered a guest-house. The Tribunal acknowledged this clarification but maintained that sub-section (5) was not applicable to the assessee's case, as it was effective from a date after the close of the assessee's accounts.
  
  Separate Judgments:
  The Judicial Member disagreed with the conclusion of the Accountant Member, arguing that the retrospective amendment should apply to the assessment year 1979-80, irrespective of the accounting period. The Judicial Member emphasized that the amendment was intended to clarify the Legislature's original intent and should be applied accordingly.
  
  The Third Member, tasked with resolving the disagreement, sided with the Judicial Member. The Third Member cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Addl. CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 275 and the Supreme Court's rulings, asserting that the Act as amended on 1st April of a financial year applies to the assessment for that year, regardless of the previous year's accounting period.
  
  The Third Member concluded that the failure to consider sub-section (5) was a mistake apparent on record, warranting rectification. Consequently, the guest-house expenses amounting to Rs. 10,798 were to be disallowed.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal's majority view held that sub-section (5) of section 37, inserted with retrospective effect from 1-4-1979, applied to the assessment year 1979-80, necessitating the disallowance of the guest-house expenses. The miscellaneous application by the revenue was thus allowed, and the Tribunal's original order was rectified to reflect this disallowance.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 13