|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 219 Records
-
1990 (6) TMI 100
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of commission/service charges of Rs. 3,17,126.
2. Disallowance of rent of Rs. 45,000.
3. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 2,55,250 on repairs.
4. Disallowance of Rs. 1,450 out of legal expenses.
5. Disallowance of Rs. 2,500 out of miscellaneous expenses.
6. Charging of interest under section 215 amounting to Rs. 2,44,670.
7. Additional ground for deduction of interest amount of Rs. 85,450.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of commission/service charges of Rs. 3,17,126:
The assessee claimed Rs. 3,17,126 as commission/service charges paid to M/s Hemkunt Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. for arranging the sale of commercial space. The ITO disallowed the claim, stating that Hemkunt Chemicals did not render any services and was not a property broker. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal observed that Hemkunt Chemicals was closely connected with the assessee's chairman, Sardar Inderjit Singh, and there was no substantial evidence of services rendered. The Tribunal directed the ITO/IAC(A) to re-examine the claim and conduct further inquiries to determine the genuineness of the expenditure.
2. Disallowance of rent of Rs. 45,000:
The assessee claimed Rs. 45,000 as rent for a building hired for shifting its office. The ITO disallowed the claim, stating that the accommodation was not used for business purposes. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt that the building was taken on rent from 15-11-1981 and that the time spent on repairs and alterations should be considered as use for business purposes. The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow the expenditure of Rs. 45,000 as business expenditure.
3. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 2,55,250 on repairs:
The assessee claimed Rs. 2,55,250 as expenditure on repairs of tenanted accommodation. The ITO disallowed the claim, treating it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal observed that the expenditure was on extensive repairs and improvements, and the lease was for an indefinitely long period. The Tribunal held that the entire expenditure was of a capital nature and was rightly disallowed. However, there was a difference of opinion between the Members, and the matter was referred to a Third Member. The Third Member held that the expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Instalment Supply (P.) Ltd.'s case.
4. Disallowance of Rs. 1,450 out of legal expenses:
The assessee claimed Rs. 6,450 as legal expenses, out of which Rs. 1,450 was disallowed by the ITO under section 80VV without mentioning that the expenditure related to income-tax proceedings. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, as the learned Departmental Representative did not deny the assertion that the expenditure was incurred in connection with legal proceedings for changing the name of the assessee.
5. Disallowance of Rs. 2,500 out of miscellaneous expenses:
The ITO disallowed Rs. 2,500 out of miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 31,309, stating that no details were furnished. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the details were provided, and the learned Departmental Representative did not question them. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 2,500.
6. Charging of interest under section 215 amounting to Rs. 2,44,670:
The assessee filed an estimate of advance tax and paid two installments but failed to pay the balance amount. The ITO charged interest under section 215 for the deficiency in payment of advance tax. The assessee contended that interest should not be charged where the assessee filed an estimate but failed to pay the tax. The Tribunal held that interest under section 215 was chargeable, as the tax paid was less than 83 1/3% of the assessed tax. The Tribunal upheld the charging of interest.
7. Additional ground for deduction of interest amount of Rs. 85,450:
The assessee sought to raise an additional ground for deduction of Rs. 85,450 as interest on bank overdrafts, which was disallowed for the assessment year 1983-84 as it pertained to the assessment year 1982-83. The Tribunal rejected the prayer to entertain this new ground, as an application under section 154 was already moved before the IAC(A) for necessary adjustments.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with directions to re-examine the disallowance of commission/service charges and to allow the rent expenditure. The disallowance of expenditure on repairs was decided in favor of the assessee by the Third Member, treating it as revenue expenditure. The disallowances of legal and miscellaneous expenses were deleted, and the charging of interest under section 215 was upheld. The additional ground for deduction of interest was not entertained.
-
1990 (6) TMI 99
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of advertising and sampling expenses incurred by the assessee.
2. Whether the reimbursement of expenses to sister concerns was a device for tax avoidance.
3. Adequacy of evidence for the actual incurring of expenses.
4. Appropriateness of the disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
Summary:
1. Legitimacy of Advertising and Sampling Expenses:
The assessee, a manufacturer of soft drink concentrates, reimbursed advertising and sampling expenses incurred by its sister concerns. The assessee passed a resolution on 2-6-1979 authorizing such reimbursement to promote its products. The total expenditure incurred was Rs. 62,69,892.33, out of which Rs. 31,91,976 was claimed to have been incurred by the bottlers. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed Rs. 21,53,788 of the sampling expenses, suspecting the legitimacy of these expenses.
2. Tax Avoidance Device:
The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) viewed the reimbursement as a device to reduce the assessee's tax liability, citing the losses suffered by the sister concerns. They relied on the judgment in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148, concluding that the arrangement was a tax avoidance device. However, the Tribunal held that the need for reimbursement arose from commercial expediency to promote sales and prevent the closure of bottling plants.
3. Adequacy of Evidence:
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to cross-verify the expenses with the bottlers' records. The assessee provided load reports and other documents to substantiate the expenses. The Tribunal found that the expenditure was genuine and dictated by business needs, emphasizing that the control and supervision were in-built due to common directors among the companies.
4. Disallowance of Expenses:
The Assessing Officer allowed Rs. 1,68,000 out of Rs. 21,53,788, considering 5% of the total sales as reasonable sampling expenses. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) restored the disallowance to Rs. 21,53,788, doubting the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal, however, held that the entire expenditure was genuine and necessary for the business. The Tribunal emphasized that the arrangement was not a colourable device but a rational business decision.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure of Rs. 21,53,788 was incurred wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business and allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance. The appeal was allowed, and the disallowance was deemed improper.
-
1990 (6) TMI 98
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of capital gains on the transfer of agricultural land.
2. Justification of action under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Determination of whether the capital gain is short-term or long-term.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Capital Gains on the Transfer of Agricultural Land:
The primary issue was whether the profit from the sale of agricultural land should be treated as capital gains and thus taxable. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated action against the legal representative of the deceased assessee, asserting that the capital gains from the sale of agricultural land had escaped assessment. The assessee contended that the land sold was agricultural land, and hence, no profit arising on its sale was taxable. Alternatively, if the land was considered a trading asset before its sale, the market value on the date of conversion should be deducted from the sale price to determine the capital gains.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) cancelled the assessment, holding that capital gains from the sale of agricultural land were not taxable. The AAC relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar, which held that profits from the sale of agricultural land were agricultural income under Section 2(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus exempt from income tax. This decision was based on the interpretation that agricultural lands within municipal limits included in the definition of capital asset by the Finance Act, 1970, should exclude lands used for agricultural purposes to avoid contradiction.
However, the Departmental Representative cited the Karnataka High Court's dissenting view in B.S. Jayachandra v. ITO, which upheld the amendment's validity and did not expressly consider whether profits from agricultural land sales were agricultural income under Section 2(1)(a).
Given the conflicting judgments and the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal preferred the view favorable to the assessee, following the Bombay High Court's judgment that profits from the sale of agricultural land were agricultural income and thus not taxable as capital gains.
2. Justification of Action Under Section 148:
The AAC also held that the ITO was not justified in taking action under Section 148, which pertains to the issuance of a notice for income escaping assessment. Since the primary issue of taxability of capital gains on agricultural land was resolved in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to decide on the validity of action under Section 147 (which relates to income escaping assessment) and Section 148.
3. Determination of Whether the Capital Gain is Short-term or Long-term:
The ITO considered the capital gain as short-term, as the deceased had acquired bhumidhari rights over the land by depositing the necessary amount on 5-8-1972. However, since the Tribunal concluded that the profit from the sale of agricultural land was agricultural income and not taxable, it did not further address whether the gain was short-term or long-term.
Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges:
The Judicial Member upheld the AAC's order, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision, which favored the assessee, and exempted the capital gain from tax. The Accountant Member, however, followed the Karnataka High Court's decision, which upheld the chargeability of capital gains on the sale of agricultural land. Due to this divergence, the matter was referred to a Third Member.
Third Member's Order:
The Third Member agreed with the Accountant Member, noting that the Finance Act, 1989, introduced an Explanation to Section 2(1)(a) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1970. This Explanation clarified that revenue derived from land does not include income from the transfer of land referred to in Section 2(14)(iii), thus nullifying the Bombay High Court's decision. Consequently, the capital gains arising from the sale of agricultural land were chargeable to tax, and the view of the Accountant Member was accepted.
Conclusion:
The appeal was ultimately decided in favor of the revenue, holding that the profit on the sale of agricultural land was chargeable to capital gains in the relevant assessment year. The matter was then referred back to the regular Bench for disposal according to the majority opinion.
-
1990 (6) TMI 97
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Income-tax Act to the assessee's income earned outside India.
2. Consideration of perquisite value of sur-tax.
3. Inclusion of mobilisation and de-mobilisation charges in the assessee's income.
4. Profits from foreign portions of the work under section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act.
5. Single stage vs. multiple stage grossing up of income.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Income-tax Act to the Assessee's Income Earned Outside India:
The assessee contended that the Income-tax Act was not applicable to their income earned outside India during the relevant accounting period ending on 31-3-1983. The Income-tax Act was extended to the Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone of India from 1-4-1983 by Notification No. GSR 304(E) dated 31-3-1983. The Tribunal declined to admit this additional ground, stating that this point should be determined in the appeal against the quantum assessment, not in the appeal against the order under section 263.
2. Consideration of Perquisite Value of Sur-tax:
The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) initiated proceedings under section 263, considering the assessment order erroneous for not including the perquisite value of sur-tax. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT failed to establish that sur-tax was leviable on the assessee. The CIT did not provide findings on the extent of the company's capital or its chargeable profits. Additionally, Notification No. GSR 307(E) dated 31-3-1983 exempted foreign companies engaged in prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils from sur-tax. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to add the perquisite value of sur-tax was not an error and did not result in prejudice to the Revenue.
3. Inclusion of Mobilisation and De-mobilisation Charges in the Assessee's Income:
The CIT considered the assessment order erroneous for not including mobilisation and de-mobilisation charges in the assessee's income. However, the Tribunal found that this point did not arise in the present group of cases as no such charges were paid to the assessees in question. Therefore, this point was not available to the CIT in these cases.
4. Profits from Foreign Portions of the Work under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act:
The CIT considered the assessment order erroneous for not considering the profits arising from the foreign portion of the work under section 9(1)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer had taken the total receipts of the foreign company from ONGC and determined the assessee's income at 15% of the receipts. There was no need for bifurcation regarding the foreign portion of the work and the portion done within the taxable territory. The Tribunal concluded that this point was not available to the CIT and did not create any error in the assessment order.
5. Single Stage vs. Multiple Stage Grossing Up of Income:
The CIT considered the assessment order erroneous for not resorting to multiple stage grossing up of income by including the perquisite value of taxes borne by ONGC. The Tribunal found that the CIT did not raise this point in the notice issued to the assessee under section 263, and the assessee had no opportunity of hearing on this point. Additionally, there was an agreement dated 24-12-1981 between the then Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, and ONGC that only single stage grossing up would be done. The Tribunal concluded that the income determined by the assessing officer on the basis of the agreement was not liable to be grossed up multiple times and that the assessment order did not result in prejudice to the Revenue.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessment orders in the case of Mecdermott International Inc. and other assessees were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The orders passed by the Commissioner under section 263 were unjustified and were hereby vacated. All the appeals were allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 96
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of rented accommodation for auditors as a guest house.
2. Disallowance of penalty under the Factories Act.
3. Disallowance of advertisement expenses.
4. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.
5. Treatment of sales promotion expenses as entertainment expenses.
6. Disallowance of directors' travelling expenses.
7. Addition out of office expenses.
8. Treatment of food expenses for foreign buyers as entertainment expenses.
9. Disallowance of travelling expenses.
10. Claim for loss due to breach of contract.
11. Charging of interest under Section 216 of the IT Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Treatment of Rented Accommodation for Auditors as a Guest House:
The assessee rented accommodation for auditors during audits, which the assessing authority treated as a guest house, disallowing the rent of Rs. 13,200 and adding an estimated Rs. 30,000 for maintenance. The Tribunal found no inquiry was made regarding the use and maintenance of the accommodation. The rent was deemed necessary for business, and the disallowance was based on conjectures without evidence. Both additions were deleted.
2. Disallowance of Penalty under the Factories Act:
A penalty of Rs. 500 under the Factories Act was disallowed. The Tribunal, referencing Supreme Court judgments, deemed the penalty as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business, allowing the claim.
3. Disallowance of Advertisement Expenses:
The disallowance of Rs. 2,775 on advertisement expenses included Rs. 1,000 paid to Punjab Agricultural University. The Tribunal found the payment to the University reasonable and related to business, allowing Rs. 1,000 and confirming the rest.
4. Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses:
An estimated disallowance of Rs. 2,000 out of miscellaneous expenses was made without affording the assessee an opportunity to explain. The Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified given the substantial income and turnover, deleting the addition.
5. Treatment of Sales Promotion Expenses as Entertainment Expenses:
Sales promotion expenses were treated as entertainment expenses. The Tribunal acknowledged the involvement of employees in entertaining customers and estimated 10% of the expenditure as related to employees, adjusting the treatment accordingly.
6. Disallowance of Directors' Travelling Expenses:
The disallowance of Rs. 51,019 out of directors' travelling expenses was upheld, referencing judgments against the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal.
7. Addition Out of Office Expenses:
An addition of Rs. 30,000 out of office expenses was challenged. The Tribunal found the details provided and the nature of expenses justified a partial relief, sustaining Rs. 20,000 and allowing Rs. 10,000.
8. Treatment of Food Expenses for Foreign Buyers as Entertainment Expenses:
Food expenses for foreign buyers were treated as entertainment expenses. The Tribunal directed that 20% of this expenditure be considered as spent on employees and the balance treated as entertainment expenses.
9. Disallowance of Travelling Expenses:
The disallowance of Rs. 48,000 out of travelling expenses was based on estimated personal expenditure. The Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified due to lack of specific evidence and consistent treatment in previous years, deleting the addition.
10. Claim for Loss Due to Breach of Contract:
A claim for loss of Rs. 90,92,832 due to breach of contract was disallowed. The Tribunal found the issue inadequately handled, lacking necessary evidence and correspondence. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with directions to examine the contract and related documents.
11. Charging of Interest Under Section 216 of the IT Act, 1961:
The charging of interest under Section 216 was challenged. The Tribunal noted the lack of findings on bona fides and opportunity for the assessee. The issue was left open for fresh consideration by the assessing authority after deciding other remanded issues.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remanded for fresh consideration and others decided in favor of the assessee.
-
1990 (6) TMI 95
Issues:
Challenge to deletion of amounts disallowed under s. 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1984-85.
Analysis:
1. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 made by the assessee to two parties under s. 40A(3) of the Act. The ITO concluded that the payments did not fall under exceptional and unavoidable circumstances as per r. 6DD(j) of the IT Rules, except for two specific instances.
2. The assessee explained that the cash payments were necessary due to the nature of the businesses of the payees, who required immediate cash for daily operations. Confirmations from the payees were submitted, and both parties were regular income tax payers. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, citing that the conditions of r. 6DD(j) were satisfied, and the case was covered by Circular No. 220.
3. The Departmental Representative argued that each payment exceeding Rs. 2,500 should be examined under s. 40A(3) and that the CIT(A) did not assess each payment individually. The representative contended that the assessee failed to prove the cash payments were made under exceptional circumstances as required by r. 6DD(j).
4. The assessee's representative supported the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the genuineness of the payments and the necessity of cash payments as per the payees' requirements. The representative cited relevant case laws and Circular No. 220 to support the contention that the payments were justified.
5. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the case was covered by Circular No. 220 and r. 6DD(j), emphasizing the genuineness of the payments, the necessity of cash payments, and the lack of control the assessee had over the payees' cash balances. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under s. 40A(3).
6. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of cash payments under s. 40A(3) for the assessment year 1984-85.
-
1990 (6) TMI 94
Issues Involved:
1. Assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Treatment of donations received from Life/Founder Members.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Assessee's Claim for Exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue in this appeal concerns the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP) for the assessment year 1985-86, was incorporated under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, and its objectives include promoting education, training, research, and professionalism in the construction and allied industries. The assessee argued that it existed solely for educational purposes and not for profit, thus qualifying for exemption under Section 10(22).
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially declined the exemption, treating the contributions from members as business income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the exemption under Section 11 but rejected the claim under Section 10(22), stating that the assessee did not meet the requirements of being a "university or any other educational institution."
Upon appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel argued that the assessee conducted educational courses, imparted education, held examinations, and granted diplomas in Construction Management, making it an educational institution under Section 10(22). The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the education provided was of a post-graduate level and involved systematic instruction, thus qualifying as an educational institution. The Tribunal directed the ITO to accept the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(22).
2. Treatment of Donations Received from Life/Founder Members:
The second issue pertains to the treatment of donations received from Life/Founder Members. The CIT(A) had treated these donations as income, although exempt under Section 11. The assessee contended that these donations should not be treated as income, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Film Federation of India.
Given the Tribunal's decision to grant exemption under Section 10(22), it found it unnecessary to discuss the treatment of these donations at length. However, it acknowledged that the assessee's stand was supported by the cited Bombay High Court decision, reinforcing the argument that these donations should not be treated as income.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee qualifies as an educational institution under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act and directed the ITO to grant the exemption accordingly. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the treatment of donations from Life/Founder Members as income was deemed unnecessary to address in detail.
-
1990 (6) TMI 92
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act for a public charitable trust in relation to income other than dividend income for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.
Assessment Year 1984-85:
The assessee, a public charitable trust, lost exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of dividend income due to holding preference shares contravening section 11(5). The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim for exemption, stating that the entire income would be taxed without deduction for object expenses. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the ITO's decision, ruling that the entire income stands disqualified for exemption under section 11 due to contravention of section 11(5) by holding investments not included in section 11(5). However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that only the dividend income from the shares should be taxed at the prescribed rate, as the trust cannot be denied exemption under section 11 for other income earned.
Assessment Year 1985-86:
For this assessment year, the ITO similarly did not accept the assessee's claim for exemption under section 11 due to holding investments contravening section 11(5). The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision, stating that the entire income of the trust stands disqualified for exemption under section 11. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the ITO to accept the contention that only the income from dividend on the shares should be taxed at the prescribed rate, while the trust should not lose exemption under section 11 for other income earned.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, holding that the trust should only be taxed on the dividend income from the shares not compliant with section 11(5), while maintaining exemption under section 11 for other income earned by the trust.
-
1990 (6) TMI 91
Issues:
- Disallowance of claim under sections 80-I and 80HH of the Income Tax Act
- Disallowance of sales tax collections under Madhya Pradesh Deferment of Sales Tax Rules
Analysis:
Issue 1: Disallowance of claim under sections 80-I and 80HH of the Income Tax Act
The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The main contention was the disallowance of the claim under sections 80-I and 80HH. The assessee established a new factory at Dewas for manufacturing glazed tiles, claiming benefits for being in a backward area. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) analyzed the conditions prescribed under section 80HH and found that the assessee had satisfied them. The Tribunal noted that the Dewas unit was independent and had new machinery without any transfer from the original factory. Referring to legal precedents, including judgments of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal held that the order disallowing the claim was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere continuity of management and funding did not negate the establishment of a new industrial undertaking. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the claim under sections 80-I and 80HH.
Issue 2: Disallowance of sales tax collections under Madhya Pradesh Deferment of Sales Tax Rules
The third ground in one of the appeals pertained to the disallowance of sales tax collections under the Madhya Pradesh Deferment of Sales Tax Rules. The assessee provided documents showing eligibility for sales tax deferment under government rules. The CBDT circular supported the treatment of deferred sales tax as actually paid, which would not be hit by section 43B of the IT Act. The Tribunal, after examining the documents, concluded that the sales tax collections under the deferment scheme should not be treated as a liability under section 43B. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and quashed the disallowance of sales tax collections.
Conclusion:
The ITAT Bombay-A allowed the assessee's appeals by permitting the claim under sections 80-I and 80HH and reversing the disallowance of sales tax collections under the Madhya Pradesh Deferment of Sales Tax Rules. The judgments were based on the fulfillment of statutory conditions and legal precedents supporting the assessee's position. The Tribunal emphasized the establishment of a new industrial undertaking and the treatment of deferred sales tax as actually paid, leading to a favorable decision for the assessee.
-
1990 (6) TMI 90
Issues: Eligibility of relief claimed under sec. 80HHC for granite export turnover.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore involved an appeal by the assessee regarding the eligibility of relief claimed under sec. 80HHC for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The primary issue was whether granite, extracted by the assessee and exported to various countries, qualified for deduction under sec. 80HHC. The assessing officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had denied the relief, citing that granite fell under the category of "minerals" excluded from the deduction as per sub-clause (b)(ii) of sec. 80HHC.
The Commissioner (Appeals) contended that the term "minerals" in sub-clause (b)(ii) should be interpreted broadly to include granite, emphasizing that beneficial provisions like sec. 80HHC should be construed liberally to promote export trade. The assessee's representative argued that granite, being a rock, should not be considered a mineral in the context of sec. 80HHC, as it serves a different commercial purpose compared to traditional minerals like gold or silver.
The Tribunal analyzed various expert opinions and legal precedents to determine the classification of granite. Geological experts opined that granite, being a rock composed of minerals, should not be classified as a mineral or ore. However, the Tribunal considered the definition of "minerals" in the Law Lexicon and the interpretation provided by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Swamy Satyanand Saraswati, which concluded that granite could be considered a mineral.
The Tribunal also referred to the principle of noscitur a sociis to interpret the term "minerals" in sec. 80HHC, emphasizing that the term should be understood in a commercial sense rather than a scientific one. It was highlighted that the method of extraction, whether through mining or quarrying, should not dictate the classification of a substance as a mineral.
Ultimately, the Tribunal held that granite should be considered a mineral for the purposes of sec. 80HHC, despite being extracted through quarrying activities. The judgment emphasized adopting a general and broad interpretation of the term "minerals" in the context of the Income-tax Act to allow the deduction claimed under sec. 80HHC for granite export turnover.
-
1990 (6) TMI 89
Issues:
1. Validity of assessments under section 143(3) read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disclosure of information regarding possession of trucks by the assessee.
3. Compliance with notice under section 148 read with section 147(a) of the Act.
4. Consideration of disclosed information in assessments.
5. Validity of returns filed by the assessee in response to notices.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals were against the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) regarding assessments for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 under section 143(3) read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The contention was that the assessments were declared null and void by the AAC based on the argument that the information about the possession of trucks by the assessee was already known to the Income Tax Officer (ITO) before completing the assessments, making the subsequent actions a 'change of opinion.'
2. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee filed a return declaring income, which was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. A voluntary disclosure was made under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, declaring the trucks. Subsequently, a duplicate return was filed, leading to another assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.
3. In 1978, the assessee filed another return for the same assessment year, claiming it was in response to a notice under section 148 of the Act. However, the Revenue denied issuing any such notice before 1978. A notice under section 148 was served in 1982, leading to a reassessment in 1986, which prompted the present appeal.
4. The AAC held both reassessments as null and void, stating that the subsequent actions were a 'change of opinion' and the ITO was not justified in initiating fresh proceedings under section 148. The AAC raised concerns about the lack of evidence of notices and the possibility of tampering with order sheets.
5. The AAC's decision was challenged, arguing that the assessments should not be declared null and void. The case was restored to the AAC for fresh orders, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the Revenue's case, the sequence of events, and the validity of notices served. The AAC was reminded of the importance of considering all facts before making a decision, especially regarding the service of notices and the possibility of tampering with records.
-
1990 (6) TMI 88
Issues:
1. Interpretation of jurisdiction of Single Member Benches under sub-section (3) of section 255 of the IT Act, 1961.
Comprehensive Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad pertained to a miscellaneous petition raising a question of law regarding the jurisdiction of Single Member Benches under sub-section (3) of section 255 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the provision should include cases where the assessment results in a negative total income exceeding Rs. 1 lac, thus arguing that a Single Member Bench would not have jurisdiction in such cases. The case in question involved an assessee who had filed a return of income showing a loss of Rs. 92,46,920, which was determined by the assessing officer as a net loss of Rs. 37,35,440. The appeal was heard by a Single Member Bench, leading to the present petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Single Member Bench due to the negative total income exceeding Rs. 1 lac.
The revenue, on the other hand, contended that the legislative intent behind sub-section (3) of section 255 was to consider total income exceeding Rs. 1 lac as the dividing line for jurisdiction. It was argued that any loss amount would inherently be less than Rs. 1 lac, thus falling within the purview of a Single Member Bench. The assessee's counsel argued that income should encompass losses for assessment purposes, suggesting that the term 'total income' should include loss figures as well.
The Tribunal analyzed the statutory provision and held that the phrase "total income does not exceed Rs. 1 lac" clearly indicated a positive figure of Rs. 1 lac, irrespective of whether it involved losses. The judgment emphasized that the criterion for determining jurisdiction was based on the quantum of income, not additions made by the assessing officer. The Tribunal clarified that even in cases where a substantial loss was reduced to a minimal positive figure, the jurisdiction would remain with the Single Member Bench. The judgment rejected the assessee's argument that a negative total income exceeding Rs. 1 lac should alter the jurisdiction of the Bench.
Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the interpretation of the statute was at the core of the issue, and even if the assessee's interpretation was plausible, it would lead to conflicting views on statutory interpretation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the petition of the assessee, affirming the jurisdiction of the Single Member Bench in the case at hand.
-
1990 (6) TMI 87
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer.
2. Applicability of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) for determining concealment of income.
3. Quantum of penalty in cases where the total income is nil or a negative figure.
4. Merits of the additions made to the assessee's income by the Income Tax Officer.
Summary:
1. Legality of the Penalty Proceedings:
The Income-tax Officer (ITO) initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income under section (u/s) 271(1)(c) after finding discrepancies in the production records of the assessee, a private limited company. The ITO made additions to the assessee's trading results based on comparable cases and past history. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) sustained some of these additions, leading to cross appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed certain additions and the ITO imposed a penalty equivalent to the concealed income. The assessee argued that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to vagueness in the notice and that the yield shown was reasonable.
2. Applicability of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal noted that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) applied as the difference between the assessed income and the returned income was more than 20%. The Tribunal held that the presumption of concealment arose and it was for the assessee to prove that the difference was not due to fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The Tribunal emphasized that the findings in the quantum appeal were relevant evidence in the penalty proceedings unless contrary evidence was produced.
3. Quantum of Penalty:
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that no penalty could be imposed if the total income was nil or negative. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was linked to the quantum of income concealed, not the tax payable. The Tribunal referred to the amended clause (iii) of section 271(1) effective from 1-4-1968, which delinked the penalty from the tax avoided and instead linked it to the income concealed. The Tribunal also noted that Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c), introduced with effect from 1-4-1976, provided for penalty even if the total income was less than the concealed income.
4. Merits of the Additions:
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the ITO on account of under-production of groundnut oil, khali, and soap. The Tribunal found that the production records were unreliable due to numerous overwritings, cuttings, and erasures. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce supporting vouchers for the original entries and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies. The Tribunal held that the additions represented the sale proceeds of items produced and sold outside the books of account. The Tribunal reduced the penalty for certain expenses but upheld the penalty for the additions related to under-production.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalty on the assessee for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c), rejecting the argument that no penalty could be imposed if the total income was nil. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving that the discrepancies were not due to fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the ITO on account of under-production and reduced the penalty for certain expenses. The appeals were partly allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 86
Issues:
1. Validity of investment allowance and additional depreciation on purchased machinery.
2. Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263.
3. Interpretation of term "installation" for grant of investment allowance.
4. Eligibility of construction business for investment allowance.
5. Comparison of definitions under different sections.
6. Requirement of manufacture or production for investment allowance.
7. Relevance of XI Schedule in determining eligibility for investment allowance.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the validity of investment allowance and additional depreciation granted by the ITO on machinery purchased by the assessee for construction activities. The CIT found the assessments erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, leading to a direction to withdraw the allowances granted by the ITO.
2. The assessee challenged the CIT's order, arguing lack of jurisdiction and validity of the allowances. The CIT's order was contested on the grounds that the investment allowance and depreciation were rightfully granted by the ITO and should be upheld.
3. The interpretation of the term "installation" was crucial in determining eligibility for investment allowance. The counsel argued that the machinery need not be embedded in the earth but only placed in a position for use in manufacturing or production, making movable items eligible for the allowance.
4. The eligibility of the construction business for investment allowance was debated, with the Departmental Representative contending that construction work does not qualify as manufacturing or production under section 32A. The CIT's order was supported based on this interpretation.
5. A comparison of definitions under different sections, particularly s. 32A and s. 45(d) of the Wealth Tax Act, highlighted the broader scope of "industrial undertaking" under s. 32A, supporting the assessee's claim for investment allowance.
6. The requirement of manufacture or production for investment allowance was analyzed, emphasizing that the construction of buildings constitutes the production of an article or thing not listed in the XI Schedule, making the business eligible for the allowance.
7. The relevance of the XI Schedule in determining eligibility for investment allowance was discussed, with the judgment citing a previous case to support the view that construction activities fall outside the listed articles, thus qualifying for the allowance.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeals and setting aside the CIT's order under section 263 for both years under consideration.
-
1990 (6) TMI 85
Issues:
Refusal to carry forward determined loss due to late filing of return.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Refusal to carry forward determined loss
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-B revolves around the refusal of the tax authorities to carry forward a determined loss of Rs. 3,17,010 due to the late filing of the return by the assessee. The return was initially due by 31st July 1984, with an extension granted until 25th Nov 1984. However, the return was filed on 10th Dec 1984, showing a loss of Rs. 2,94,978. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) computed the loss at Rs. 3,17,010 but opined that it could not be carried forward as the return was filed after the extended period. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court decision in Brij Mohan vs. CIT and the amendment under the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, affecting the carry forward of losses. The CIT(A) concluded that the return must be filed within the allowed or extended period to avail of the benefit of carrying forward the loss.
Issue 2: Applicability of Legal Provisions
The counsel for the assessee argued that the provisions of the 1922 Act were similar to the 1961 Act concerning sections 22 and 139, with the main distinction being the provision for interest under the latter. The counsel contended that the decision in CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. was relevant to the case, emphasizing that the observations made by the CIT(A) regarding the absence of an extension provision under the 1922 Act were incorrect. The counsel also highlighted the impact of the amendment to section 80 for the assessment year 1984-85, emphasizing that losses determined from returns filed under section 139(4) should also be carried forward. The counsel referenced CBDT Circular No. 397, dated 16th Oct 1984, explaining the amendment in section 80 and argued that it was binding on tax authorities. Additionally, the counsel presented a list of judgments supporting the assessee's position.
Issue 3: Arguments and Counterarguments
The Departmental Representative supported the tax authorities' decisions, reiterating the reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim. The representative emphasized that the amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, was not considered in the decisions cited by the assessee's counsel, pointing to specific judgments like Nagpur Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd. and Gujarat Leather Industries Ltd. The Departmental Representative urged the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order. In response, the counsel for the assessee clarified that most decisions relied upon pertained to assessment years post the 1970 amendment and argued against the applicability of the said amendment to the issue at hand.
Final Decision:
After examining the submissions and relevant orders, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. Citing the majority view of High Courts and Tribunal judgments supporting the assessee's position, the Tribunal referred to the decision in Annu Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. by the Delhi Bench, which held that the amended provisions of section 80 would apply from 1st April 1985 and not retrospectively to the earlier assessment year. The Tribunal also noted that the observations in the Supreme Court's decision in Brij Mohan were not applicable to the case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the ITO to carry forward the loss for adjustment in subsequent assessment years.
-
1990 (6) TMI 84
Issues Involved:
1. Claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Retrospective effect of amendments in Rules.
3. Impact of registration u/s 12A.
4. Applicability of the doctrine of res judicata.
5. Interpretation of Rule 4(x) regarding non-charitable objects.
Summary:
Claim of Exemption u/s 11:
The central issue in these appeals is the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the tax authorities. The assessee, an unregistered association of stock brokers, argued that their primary objective of controlling and developing the stock market qualifies as a charitable purpose u/s 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the dominant objective of the assessee-exchange is a charitable object, entitling it to exemption u/s 11.
Retrospective Effect of Amendments in Rules:
The tax authorities contended that amendments made in Rules 4, 74, and 121 of the assessee-exchange in 1998 cannot have retrospective effect. However, the Tribunal found these amendments to be clarificatory in nature, emphasizing that both the Governing Board and the General Meeting did not have powers to distribute profits among the members even before the amendments. Therefore, the amendments were held to have retrospective effect.
Impact of Registration u/s 12A:
The Tribunal noted that once registration is granted u/s 12A by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Assessing Officer cannot deny exemption on the ground that the objects of the trust are not charitable. The Tribunal cited various judicial pronouncements supporting the view that registration u/s 12A is not an empty formality and implies scrutiny of the charitable nature of the institution.
Applicability of the Doctrine of Res Judicata:
The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had been granted exemption for many years, and there was no justification for a departure from this position. Although the doctrine of res judicata does not strictly apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of finality and certainty in litigation should prevail. The Tribunal found no new facts justifying a different view for the assessment years under appeal.
Interpretation of Rule 4(x):
The tax authorities argued that Rule 4(x), which allows the establishment of funds for the benefit of members or employees, is non-charitable. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that such clauses are ancillary to the primary objective of the association and do not negate its charitable nature. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents to support this view.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provided other conditions regarding the application of income are satisfied. The appeals were allowed, recognizing the assessee as a charitable institution.
-
1990 (6) TMI 83
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the ITO's decision to add interest difference of Rs. 40,517 charged by the assessee to Vandana Silk Mills, noting a diversion of income from the assessee-firm. The Tribunal restored the ITO's order, allowing the appeal.
-
1990 (6) TMI 82
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of installed capacity for concessional assessment under Notification No. 128/77.
2. Validity and reliability of certificates from the Ministry of Industry and Chartered Engineer.
3. Interpretation of installed capacity versus production capacity.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of installed capacity for concessional assessment under Notification No. 128/77:
The respondents claimed concessional assessment for paper manufactured under Notification No. 128/77, asserting their plant's installed capacity was 2000 metric tonnes per annum, qualifying them for a 75% duty exemption. The lower authority allowed only a 60% exemption, treating the capacity as over 2000 metric tonnes. The Assistant Collector ruled against the respondents based on their earlier declarations. However, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the respondents' plea, supported by a certificate from the Ministry of Industry, recognizing their capacity as 2000 metric tonnes. The Tribunal had to determine whether the installed capacity should be taken as 2000 metric tonnes or more based on the evidence presented.
2. Validity and reliability of certificates from the Ministry of Industry and Chartered Engineer:
The respondents relied on certificates from the Ministry of Industry and a Chartered Engineer to support their claim. The Ministry of Industry certified the production capacity as 2000 metric tonnes. The Chartered Engineer's certificate indicated a daily production capacity of 7.2 tonnes at 100% efficiency, translating to 1944 metric tonnes annually at 75% efficiency. The Tribunal noted that the Ministry of Industry's certificate was based on the respondents' request and past production figures, not the design specifications of the machinery. The Chartered Engineer's certificate lacked a basis for the efficiency rate used. The majority opinion held that the certificates should not be discarded lightly, especially given the trust placed in the DGTD by the government.
3. Interpretation of installed capacity versus production capacity:
The Tribunal distinguished between installed capacity and production capacity. Installed capacity refers to the maximum capacity of the machinery as designed, while production capacity reflects actual production, which may be lower due to various factors. The respondents' historical production data showed fluctuations, with production exceeding 2000 tonnes in several years. The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not provided evidence of any reduction in installed capacity from the declared 2500 tonnes in 1965. The majority opinion emphasized that the installed capacity should be taken as equivalent to the capacity recognized by the government through industrial licenses or registration, as clarified by the Ministry of Industry.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal, in its majority opinion, concluded that the installed capacity of the respondents' unit should be held as not exceeding 2000 metric tonnes based on the evidence produced, including the certificates from the Ministry of Industry and the Chartered Engineer. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 128/77 with a 75% duty exemption.
-
1990 (6) TMI 81
Issues:
1. Refund of excess excise duty collected by the respondents.
2. Question of unjust enrichment.
3. Burden of excess excise duty passed on to consumers by the distributors.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Refund of excess excise duty
The court issued a notice to determine if the respondents had passed on the burden of excess excise duty collected to their dealers. The respondents argued against refund, claiming it would result in unjust enrichment as the petitioners had already collected it from customers. However, the petitioners cited Central Government instructions prohibiting denial of refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court found in favor of the petitioners, stating that the respondents failed to establish passing on the burden to consumers, entitling the petitioners to the refund.
Issue 2: Question of unjust enrichment
The respondents initially contended that refunding the excess excise duty would lead to unjust enrichment as the petitioners had already collected it from customers. However, the court considered the Central Government instructions directing the sanctioning of refund claims in accordance with the law and Section 11B of the Act. The court held that the respondents could not raise the question of unjust enrichment based on these instructions.
Issue 3: Burden of excess excise duty passed on to consumers
The distributors, AGIL, argued that the burden of excess excise duty was not passed on to consumers. They explained that the excise duty charged was only 1.62% of the total price, not the excess duty collected. AGIL's pricing strategy was based on market competition, offering trade discounts to dealers to stay competitive. The court accepted AGIL's arguments, noting that the respondents failed to prove that the burden was transferred to consumers. AGIL did not claim a refund in the petition but reserved the right to do so against the petitioners.
The court ordered the respondents to refund the excess excise duty collected, which had been deposited in court, along with accrued interest. The ruling was made without costs to either party, and the Prothonotary was directed to act upon the order.
-
1990 (6) TMI 80
Issues:
Challenge to legality and validity of detention order under COFEPOSA Act due to delay in issuance of order after seizure of contraband gold.
Analysis:
The habeas corpus petition was filed challenging the detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner, claiming to be the detenu's father, contested the legality and validity of the detention order issued by the 4th Respondent. The detention order was served upon the detenu on 19th March 1990. The incident leading to the detention occurred on 21st May 1989 when Customs Officers intercepted the detenu at Sahar Air Port along with two panchas, resulting in the seizure of 240 gold bars. Despite the seriousness of the seizure, there was a significant delay of nearly 9 months in issuing the impugned detention order. The detenu had been arrested, produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, and granted bail on 28th June 1989, which was known to the detaining authority. The detaining authority was criticized for the delay in issuing the detention order, with the petitioner arguing that the live link was broken, and there was no need for preventive detention after such a long delay. The detaining authority's approach was questioned for lack of seriousness and non-application of mind, rendering the satisfaction behind the detention order as sham and not genuine.
The detaining authority filed an affidavit in reply, attempting to explain the delay by stating that additional documents were called for, leading to the delay. However, the Court found the explanation unsatisfactory, considering it a whitewash that could not justify the delay in issuing the detention order. The Court held that the delay in issuing the detention order tainted the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the preventive action against the detenu. Consequently, the petition succeeded, and the impugned detention order dated 22nd February 1990 was quashed and set aside. The detenu was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. No costs were awarded in this matter.
....
|
9911796707
