|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 229 Records
-
1990 (4) TMI 114 - ITAT MADRAS-A
A Firm, Carrying On Business, Discontinued Business, Trading Liability ... ... ... ... ..... uestion of including the amount in the hands of the assessee did not arise. 23. The provisions of sec. 176(3A) and 189 are independent of each other. As long as an amount falls within the ambit of eitherof the provisions, it has to be taxed in the hands of the respective assessee. Of course, it goes without saying that assessment of the same amount twice though it be in the hands of different assessees, cannot arise. In the present case, taxation of the amount of Rs. 7,65,802 squarely falls under the provisions of section 176(3A) which is applicable in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 and since there is no material to show that such amount has been included already in the hands of the firm, the question of excluding the same from the present assessment does not arise on the ground put forth by the learned counsel that it was mandatory to make an assessment in the hands of the firm in the first instance. 24. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed
-
1990 (4) TMI 113 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Immovable Property, Movable Property, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... e appeal before the CWT (Appeals) was pending since it was disposed of only on 23-12-1988. He could have considered in that appeal if it had been brought to his notice. Moreover, the revenue had appealed against the order of the CWT (Appeals) to the Tribunal in WTA Nos. 221 to 223/Mds/89 with reference to a different matter namely the valuation of certain shares and the appeal was disposed of on 30-1-90. Nothing prevented the revenue from taking up a ground relating to the valuation of this property and pleading for enhancement on the basis of the valuation report. Since that was not done, the assessment with reference to the valuation of this property had become final even with reference to the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner made u/s. 25(2) was without jurisdiction and has to be cancelled. In this view of the matter, we consider it unnecessary to deal with the other submissions made by the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1990 (4) TMI 112 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... tion, it could hardly be accepted that it could be deemed to be a gift by regarding the consideration stated as inadequate. 7. Even if any inadequacy can be imputed this is a case where it could be made up by a simple procedure of revising the consideration since it would be a mere accounting entry in the sense that that consideration would be offset by the value of the shares being allotted to the assessee, which as a holding company would always have equivalent value of the property belonging to the wholly owned subsidiary. It is also significant that in spite of the consideration being regarded as inadequate for gift-tax purposes, no proceedings were taken for acquiring the property under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. All these facts lead to the irresistible conclusion that the provisions of section 4(1)(a) were not attracted to the facts of this case. The assessment of the deemed gift under that section must, therefore, be cancelled. The appeal is allowed
-
1990 (4) TMI 111 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Book Entries, Deemed Profit, Firm Consisting, Reopening Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... on properties of the partners were treated as the separate properties of each of the partners to the extent of their share, could not have any effect without there being an instrument in writing evidencing the transfer of the interese . Against this argument the learned departmental representative was not able to put forward any effective counter argument. Having regard to the above decision of the Madras High Court I have to hold that since in this case transfer of the building took place by means of mere book entries effected on 31-3-1979 it should be held that the said transfer is in effective since such transfer did not take place by means of a registered document though the building in question is more than Rs. 100 in value and it is an immovable property. Therefore ascertainment of deemed profit under section 41(2) on the building, in my opinion, is not justified, since there is no sale under section 41(2). 8. In the result the appeal of the department is partly allowed
-
1990 (4) TMI 106 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... are quite distinguishable. In that case the assessee had maintained truck-wise and trip-wise receipts and expenditure registers which could serve the purpose of log book. The increase in certain expenditure which caused the low gross profit rate was also properly explained by the assessee. It was on these facts that the rejection of the books of accounts of the assessee was declared improper. In the case before us, the increase in the purchase of the tyres of the truck could not be satisfactorily explained by the assessee. In our opinion, therefore, the CIT (A) could have thought of an upward revision of the gross profit rate. 5. However, keeping the past history of the truck in view and looking to the fact that the truck was sold in Dec., 1983 for Rs. 75,000, we feel inclined to reduce the addition of Rs. 25,000 in place of Rs. 41,663. The appeals could succeed to that extent only. 6. In the result this appeal is partly allowed and the addition made is reduced to Rs. 25,000.
-
1990 (4) TMI 104 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... hat the owner had no income from the said vessel, the assessee became anxious to get the vessel back rather than to insist on recovery of the hire charges. Under the circumstances of the case, the assessee did surrender the income. The CIT (A), therefore, rightly deleted the additions in both the years. 10. Next we come to the appeal of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1977-78. The ground of objection in the said appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing investment allowance on additions to the barge of Rs. 3,19,063. According to the assessee, the said expenses were incurred towards improvement of the barge, and, therefore, investment allowance under s. 32A was allowable. 11. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties at length. Sec. 32A does not permit investment allowance on any additions made to any ship. The claim of the assessee is, therefore, not maintainable. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Department and the appeal of the assessee are dismissed.
-
1990 (4) TMI 103 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Assessment Order, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... hich are not the subject-matter of proceedings under section 8 of the Surtax Act . We should hold that either the present two grounds with which we are concerned were not raised or were raised and held against the assessee in the assessment proceedings which culminated in the order dated 31-3-1986. These questions are nowhere related to or have any nexus with the charge of tax which arose for the first time under the amnesty proceedings. Therefore, the general rule that reopening can be made only for the benefit of the Revenue should be followed and it should be held that since these two grounds which were not dealt with by the Wealth-tax Officer in the assessment proceedings pursuant to the amnesty return filed lot the assessment year 1978-79 should not be permitted to be raised by the assessee before this Tribunal. We hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is justified in rejecting the same. 6. to 9. These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.
-
1990 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... se Rent 12,000.00 . . . 4,81,921.64 . . 1,43,95,852.42 YIELD Ql.Kg G.N. Oil 5,783-60 G.N. Cake 8,642-95 Wastage 190-96 . 14,617-51 COST PRICE OF OIL G.N. Oil mdash Direct purchases during the year Ql. 1974 for Rs. 41,849.00 Cost price of Rs. 41,849.00 . G.N. Oil per kg mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash Rs. 21.21 . 1974 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash Cost of G.N. Oil crushed during the year 1987-88 Ql. 5783.60 x Rs. 21.20 Rs. 1,22,61,232.00 Cost of G.N. Cake Rs. 1,43,95,852.42 mdash Rs. 1,22,61,232.00 Rs. 21,34,620.42 Cost of one kg. of 21,34,620.42 . . mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash Rs. 2.47 G.N. cake 8,64,295 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31st March, 1988 I. G.N. OIL Ql. Kg. gm. Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps. . i. At godown Nil Nil Nil ii. With consignees 241.21.5 21.20 5,11,365.20 II. G.N. CAKE . . . . i. At godown 32.0 2.47 79.40 . ii. With consignees 3516.55.0 2.47 8,68,587.85 Total closing stock value as on 31st March, 1988 13,80,022.45
-
1990 (4) TMI 101 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Charitable Purpose, General Public Utility ... ... ... ... ..... 984 148 ITR 287 (AP) wherein the Trust was created only to benefit the personnel of the Police Department and their families. 12. We now make a reference to the last authority relied on on behalf of the respondent assessee which is a decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Andhra Pradesh Riding Club, 1987 168 ITR 393 (AP) wherein also their Lordships taking a similar view held that public need not be the general public. It is sufficient if a section of the public is benefited. 13. We do not find any substance in the present appeals. The learned Commissioner has also elaborately dealt with the issue while accepting the assessee s stand. Adopting those very reasons and in view of the elaborate discussions made by us hereinbefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee is a charitable institution within the meaning of sec. 2(15) of the Act and, therefore, entitled to exemption of its income u/s. 11 of the Act. 14. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed
-
1990 (4) TMI 100 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... s of the learned counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A) has dealt with the merits of the case. We have carefully gone through the order of the CIT(A) and we are of the opinion that he has not dealt with the merits of the case. 6. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the learned CIT (A) was not justified in cancelling the assessment order dt.27th March, 1986. As the assessee has not been given proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT (A) has also not gone into the merits of the case, in the interest of substainal justice, we consider it proper to set aside the orders of the ITO and the CIT(A) and restore the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that he shall now give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a fresh order taking into consideration what the assessee has to say with regard to the various additions made by the ITO. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, for statistical purposes only.
-
1990 (4) TMI 99 - ITAT DELHI-C
Acquisition Of Immovable Property, Initiation Of Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ence available at the time of initiation (5) That the presumption u/s. 269-C(2) were not then available at the time of initiation (6) In view of the restrictions and limited scope of the development of property under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the fact that the property is situated in Luyeten s Bungalow Zone, rates as fixed per sq. yard by L and D.O. for the purpose of realising the unearned increase and the available FAR, the serious drawback in making group housing etc. We hold that both on the basis of facts and according to law the acquisition proceedings are bad and as such vacated. The only issue on which we are with the Revenue is that the tenancy was a make believe affair and land and building was the proper method adopted in this case. But this has become academic when we have held that as per law and on the basis of facts the order of the IAC (Acquisition) is not maintainable and we have quashed the same. 37. In the result assessee-appellant s appeal is allowed.
-
1990 (4) TMI 98 - ITAT DELHI-B
Deductions In Respect, New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... rn is physically twisted under mechanical process in chemicals, a different commercial commodity than the flat yarn is produced and as such the processing of the flat yarn amounts to manufacturing of goods. Since no contrary decision has been brought to our notice, we respectfully following the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT hold that the processing of flat yarn by a mechanical process and by twisting several threads together, a different commercial commodity is produced. Thus the third objection raised by the assessing officer for denying the benefit of deductions u/s. 80HH and 80-I to the assessee that the assessee is not engaged in the manufacture of goods does not stand the test of law. For the aforementioned reasons we hold that the order passed by the CIT(A) does not call for any interference and that the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of secs. 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed
-
1990 (4) TMI 97 - ITAT DELHI-A
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... partmental Representative, who appealed before me, relied upon a number of decisions reported in Western Automobiles (India) v. CIT 1978 112 ITR 1048 (Bom.), CIT v. R.B.Shah and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 587 (Cal.), CIT v. Krishna and Co. 1979 120 ITR 144 (Mad.), H.V. Venugopal Chettiar v. CIT 1985 153 ITR 376 (Mad.), CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 1983 139 ITR 1028 (Guj.) and Gumani Ram Siri Ram v. CIT 1972 85 ITR 67 (Punj. and Har.) but in my opinion reference to these cases is not necessary because of my view that based upon the facts, it could not be said that the assessee agreed that the addition of Rs. 4,861 was the concealed income of the assessee. Agreement of the assessee came because of the helplessness to prove to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer by giving the names of the customers, that those transactions related to the customers after a long lapse of time. 9. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for, decision according to majority opinion.
-
1990 (4) TMI 96 - ITAT DELHI-A
Advance Tax, Application For Rectification, Debatable Issue, High Court, Interest On Refund, Mistake Apparent From Record
-
1990 (4) TMI 95 - ITAT DELHI
Cash Credits, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... loss of revenue No remedial action is necessary in summary assessment cases, as the revenue loss if any is consciously suffered by the Government to utilise resources for scrutiny and investigation of larger cases. In such cases, CIT should only inform Audit that the cases are completed under the Summary Assessment Scheme. The above Circular of the Board shows that excepting those cases where scrutiny has been made, in all other cases where assessment were made under section 143(1), as in the present case for the A.Y. 1985-86, no action under section 263 was to be taken by the Commissioner. Circulars of the Board relied upon by the assessee, are benevolent Circulars and it is a settled proposition by now that such circulars are binding on the Income-tax authorities. Therefore, in whatever manner the matteris looked at, it is not possible to uphold the order of the learned Commissioner for the A.Y. 1985-86 either. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed
-
1990 (4) TMI 94 - ITAT DELHI
Amnesty Scheme, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... tified in doing so. In the assessment year 1981-82 the assessee had shown a net income from private tuition and coaching at Rs. 10,000 and the opening capital as on 31-3-1980 had been disclosed at Rs. 7,500. For the A.Y. 1982-83 the said income had been shown at Rs. 12,000 and the opening capital as on 31-3-1982 at Rs. 17,500. The assessee had disclosed in his written submissions that his mother Smt. Pushpa Agarwal was also doing coaching job since 1979 and that he was earning while learning as inspired by his parents and had started coaching work after High School initially by helping his mother and later on by doing it independently teaching students of English medium schools up to 5th standard and thereafter he started teaching mathematics and science to the students up to 8th standard because he gave up his studies after Intermediate. Looking to all these facts, therefore, the order of the learned Commissioner has to be quashed. 6. In the result, these appeals are allowed
-
1990 (4) TMI 93 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... factor against the assessee can be easily termed as favouring the Nagesh Group because this group knowing that the AWC was not worth a fraction of its face value wanted the entire capital to be paid-up and that was apparently the deal. Therefore, if there can be said to be a cause of real action it may be in relation to J.C. Gupta Group though we cannot and are expressing absolutely no opinion in that regard. 35. The documents, letter and other communications which are not referred by us shall not form part of the Tribunal record but certain statements have been dealt with and have been considered in the interest of justice and fair play after taking these on record under r. 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 36. In the result, in addition to relying on the CIT(A) s order, we dismiss this Revenue s appeal for the reasons recorded by us with the result that the dismissal is on more than one count independent of each other. 37. Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1990 (4) TMI 92 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Plant And Machinery, Profits And Gains Of Business Or Profession ... ... ... ... ..... being used as canteen for the welfare of the low-paid employees during the relevant period. In our considered view, the assessee satisfied all the conditions necessary for claiming initial depreciation and the ld IAC(A) should not have denied the assessee s claim on some untenable ground. M/s Bakeman Home Product was a lessee of the assessee in respect of building, plant and machinery, where the canteen was situated. It is not the case that the canteen was not being used for that purpose by the workers. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is required to be held that the canteen was being used by the workers in connection with the assessee s business and the technical objection raised by the Revenue would appear to be unjustified. We thus see no substance in the stand taken by the Revenue and thus vacate the finding under challenge. The assessee is entitled to initial depreciation, as claimed. 7 to 9. These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.
-
1990 (4) TMI 91 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Contingency Reserve, General Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... , however, there is a clear finding of fact that the sum of Rs. 34,87,647 represents the debt owed by the assessee to the colliery company towards coal supplied. 29. The Contingency Reserve was created in a sum of Rs. 35,76,704 that is to say, not in a round sum, but in an odd sum. As we see it, the said sum clearly comprises the sum of Rs. 34,87,647 (which the assessee owed the colliery company) and the sum of Rs. 89,057 (which, as conceded by the assessee s counsel, related to other debts owed by the assessee). It should, therefore, follow that the sum in question is nothing but a provision. The assessee has no doubt chosen to label it as a reserve but labels do not decide legal issues. Hence the aforesaid Madras decision cannot avail the assessee. 30. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore that of the ITO. 31. In the result, the departmental appeal relating to the assessment year 1982-83 is allowed
-
1990 (4) TMI 90 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... ed in the case of the trust for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 and was carried forward to the subsequent assessment year. It was not allocated amongst the beneficiaries. Therefore, the trust alone can get the benefit of set off of such loss in the asst. yr. 1985-86. 10. Since the conditions laid down in ss. 72 and 80 have been fulfilled in the present case and since further there is no dispute about the genuineness of the loss sustained, in our opinion, the order passed by the ITO on 28th July, 1986 for the asst. yr. 1984-85 was a correct order in law. It was not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and as decided by the Madras High Court in the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT, an order which is correct in law cannot be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT under s. 263, restore the order of the ITO and allow this appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
............
|
