|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 284 Records
-
1986 (7) TMI 165
Issues:
1. Whether the admission of a minor partner in a firm resulted in gifts by existing partners.
2. Whether the assessment of gift tax on individual partners was justified.
3. Whether the firm or individual partners should be liable for gift tax in such cases.
Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals by two partners against the AAC's order for the assessment year 1971-72 regarding the admission of a minor partner in the firm M. George Brothers Chitty Fund. The GTO held that the admission of the minor resulted in a reduction of each partner's share, constituting gifts. The AAC upheld this view based on the Madras High Court decision in CGT v. V.A.M. Ayya Nadar [1969] 73 ITR 761.
2. The partners argued that there were no gifts involved as the minor did not contribute capital, and any alleged gift should be attributed to the firm, not individual partners. They cited the case law of M.K. Kuppuraj v. CGT [1985] 153 ITR 481 and CGT v. Harinder Katyal [1985] 23 Taxman 9 (Delhi) to support their position.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and concluded that the admission of a minor partner was an act of the firm, not individual partners. Referring to the case of M.K. Kuppuraj, the Tribunal emphasized that for a gift tax assessment, the firm should be liable, not individual partners, as all partners suffered a detriment due to the admission of the minor. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that the partners had foregone a portion of their profits in favor of the minor, stating that only the assessee suffered a detriment, not the firm or other partners.
4. The Tribunal highlighted that the consent of all partners was necessary for admitting a minor partner, and the firm, as a collective entity, was responsible for such decisions. Citing the Madras High Court's reasoning in M.K. Kuppuraj, the Tribunal held that the partners or the firm, who did not suffer any detriment, could not be considered donors for gift tax purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the partners, canceling the gift tax assessments imposed on them individually.
5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the partners should not be held liable for gift tax in the given circumstances, as the admission of the minor partner was an act of the firm, and individual partners did not make gifts to the minor.
-
1986 (7) TMI 164
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Treatment of sales tax collections as trading receipts.
3. Timing of liability and payment of sales tax.
Summary:
1. Applicability of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee-firm, a wholesale dealer in rice, sugar, and provisions, contested the ITO's application of section 43B, which mandates that tax or duty payable to the government is deductible only upon actual payment. The ITO argued that the sales tax collected but not paid by the end of the accounting year should be included in the assessee's income. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the ITO's decision, but the Tribunal found that section 43B was inapplicable since the due dates for the sales tax payments were after the end of the accounting year.
2. Treatment of Sales Tax Collections as Trading Receipts:
The ITO treated the sales tax collections as part of the trading receipts, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, which held that sales tax collections are trading receipts. The assessee argued that they acted as a trustee for the State Government and did not claim any deduction for sales tax in computing taxable income. The Tribunal, however, held that sales tax collections are indeed trading receipts but noted that the liability to pay the tax had not yet arisen by the end of the accounting year.
3. Timing of Liability and Payment of Sales Tax:
The Tribunal examined the timing of the liability and payment of sales tax. According to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the due dates for the sales tax collected in July and part of August were 20th August and 20th September, respectively. Since the accounting year ended on 16th August, the Tribunal concluded that the liability had not yet become due and payable by the end of the accounting year. Therefore, section 43B did not apply, and the amount of Rs. 1,35,502 could not be included in the assessee's income for the assessment year 1984-85.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that section 43B was inapplicable as the sales tax liability had not become due by the end of the accounting year, and thus, the amount of Rs. 1,35,502 could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration.
-
1986 (7) TMI 163
Issues:
Levy of capital gains in respect of sale of a property partly occupied by the assessee and partly tenanted.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal regarding the levy of capital gains on the sale of a property that was partly occupied by the assessee and partly tenanted. The property in question was a house in New Delhi, sold for Rs. 1,60,000 in 1977, with the ground floor rented out and the first floor and barsati in self-occupation of the assessee. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) subjected 50% of the capital gains to tax. The assessee appealed against this decision, claiming exemption of total capital gains.
The Appellate Tribunal, with the assistance of the departmental representative, referenced a Madras High Court decision to interpret the term 'mainly' in the context of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The departmental representative argued that even though the revenue was not in appeal, the exemption of 50% of the capital gains was wrongly allowed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal examined the usage of the property and found that since the ground floor was rented out, it could not be considered mainly utilized for residential purposes, as required for exemption under Section 54.
The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was addressed by the High Court. In that case, it was held that the property must be principally used as a residence for the exemption to apply. Since in the current case, the entire first floor was let out, it did not qualify as mainly used for residential purposes. Despite the assessee purchasing another house after the sale, the claim for exemption of capital gains was deemed inadmissible.
The grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal included issues of chargeability of capital gains and claims for expenses like commission. However, as there were no arguments presented on these points, they were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. Disputes regarding calculation and certain additions not considered by the lower authorities were also rejected.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the decision to levy capital gains on the sale of the property.
-
1986 (7) TMI 162
Issues Involved:
1. Annulment of the assessment order.
2. Sur-tax liability deduction.
3. Status of the assessee as a public company.
4. Section 80J relief.
5. Weighted deduction under Section 35B.
6. Hotel expenses in excess of the limit under Rule 6D.
7. Entertainment and guest house expenses.
8. Sale promotion expenses.
9. Sales-tax liability of M/s Gulabchand Ratanlal.
10. Addition of electricity bill.
11. Deduction for intercom telephones and fire-extinguishers.
12. Replacement cost of carpet and jute-holding cone.
13. Expenses on wall-clocks distributed to dealers.
14. Dinner expenses for Asian games participants and employees.
15. Deduction of water-tax paid.
16. Reduction of interest under Section 40A(8).
17. Investment allowance on new machinery.
18. Investment allowance on outgoing switchboard.
19. Investment allowance on electrical machinery.
20. Depreciation on wooden cabins and double shift allowance.
21. Depreciation on Vanaspati unit and weigh bridges.
22. Extra shift allowance for Ludhiana Refinery Unit.
23. Depreciation on building at harbour.
24. Extra shift allowance for OWM Solvent unit.
25. Extra shift allowance and additional depreciation on new machinery.
26. Depreciation on electrical machinery in OWM Solvent, Ludhiana.
27. Depreciation on generator in Oswal Solvent.
28. Depreciation on plant and machinery in Ludhiana Vanaspati Unit.
29. Extra shift allowance on electrical machinery in Oswal Export Wing Unit.
30. Extra shift allowance on machinery installed during the year.
31. Depreciation on building and furniture of Export Display House.
32. ESA depreciation on generator of main textile unit.
33. Deletion of addition under the head 'leave with wages'.
34. Depreciation and investment allowance on grain analyser.
35. Deletion of unexplained investment on factory building.
36. Section 80J relief in respect of refinery units.
37. Foreign travelling expenses.
38. Deletion of addition in Madras Solvent Unit.
39. Deletion of addition for under-valuation of closing stock.
40. Ad hoc addition in Ludhiana Refinery Unit.
41. Deletion of addition in Madras Refinery Unit.
42. Ad hoc addition in Oswal Solvent Unit and OWM Solvent Unit.
43. Deletion of addition in Ludhiana Vanaspati Unit.
44. Unpaid electricity bill and reduction.
45. Investment allowance on exhaust fan and humidifier.
46. Investment allowance on new machinery in Ludhiana Refinery Unit and Madras Oil Refinery Unit.
47. Depreciation on gas cylinders.
48. Extra shift allowance on storage and cooling tower.
49. Depreciation on godowns and toilets in factory premises.
50. Triple shift allowance on Vanaspati Plant.
51. Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia).
52. Depreciation on building of Export Display House.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Annulment of the Assessment Order:
The assessee's request for annulment of the assessment order was not pressed during the hearing and was subsequently rejected.
2. Sur-tax Liability Deduction:
The assessee's ground for deduction of sur-tax liability was rejected, consistent with the bench's previous decisions, including the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1976-77.
3. Status of the Assessee as a Public Company:
The ground regarding the assessee's status as a public company was not pressed by the counsel and was thus rejected.
4. Section 80J Relief:
The ground for Section 80J relief was considered academic due to a Supreme Court decision, and thus, it was rejected.
5. Weighted Deduction under Section 35B:
The assessee's claim for weighted deduction on travelling expenses was partially allowed. The Tribunal agreed that actual export is not necessary for claiming weighted deduction on foreign travelling. However, since the trip was for both exploring foreign markets and purchasing machinery, the weighted deduction was allowed on 50% of the expenses.
6. Hotel Expenses in Excess of Limit under Rule 6D:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the excess hotel expenses as per Rule 6D, consistent with previous orders in the assessee's case.
7. Entertainment and Guest House Expenses:
The disallowance of Rs. 12,000 for entertainment and guest house expenses was upheld, as the issue was already covered against the assessee.
8. Sale Promotion Expenses:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow Rs. 91,273 for sale promotion expenses due to the lack of evidence regarding the ultimate beneficiaries of the distributed items.
9. Sales-Tax Liability of M/s Gulabchand Ratanlal:
The CIT(A)'s decision was reversed, allowing the deduction of Rs. 33,996 for sales-tax liability, as the assessee suffered the loss during the year under consideration due to business relations.
10. Addition of Electricity Bill:
The Tribunal allowed the total claim of Rs. 1,03,796 for the electricity bill, confirming that the liability arose during the year under consideration and should be allowed as a deduction.
11. Deduction for Intercom Telephones and Fire-Extinguishers:
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and allowed the deduction for intercom telephones and fire-extinguishers as revenue expenditure.
12. Replacement Cost of Carpet and Jute-Holding Cone:
The Tribunal allowed the claim for the replacement cost of carpet, jute-holding cone, and fire-extinguishers as revenue expenditure.
13. Expenses on Wall-Clocks Distributed to Dealers:
The Tribunal allowed a relief of Rs. 12,000 for wall-clocks distributed to dealers, accepting the alternative contention of the assessee.
14. Dinner Expenses for Asian Games Participants and Employees:
The disallowance of Rs. 10,105 for dinner expenses was upheld, as the Tribunal found no force in the assessee's contention.
15. Deduction of Water-Tax Paid:
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 3,000 for water-tax paid, as the demand was raised during the year under consideration.
16. Reduction of Interest under Section 40A(8):
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the claim for reducing Rs. 25,570 under Section 40A(8).
17. Investment Allowance on New Machinery:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow investment allowance on humidifiers and exhaust fans but rejected the claim for weighing scales and laboratory equipment.
18. Investment Allowance on Outgoing Switchboard:
The Tribunal allowed the investment allowance on the outgoing switchboard, considering it part and parcel of the Vanaspati unit.
19. Investment Allowance on Electrical Machinery:
The Tribunal allowed the investment allowance on electrical machinery in the solvent plant, considering it part and parcel of the plant.
20. Depreciation on Wooden Cabins and Double Shift Allowance:
The Tribunal allowed 100% depreciation on wooden cabins and double shift allowance on electrical installations in the fully-fashioned unit.
21. Depreciation on Vanaspati Unit and Weigh Bridges:
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for depreciation at 15% on the Vanaspati unit and extra shift allowance on weigh bridges, consistent with previous decisions.
22. Extra Shift Allowance for Ludhiana Refinery Unit:
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for extra shift allowance for 258 days in the Ludhiana Refinery Unit as it was not pressed by the assessee.
23. Depreciation on Building at Harbour:
The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow 10% depreciation on the building at the harbour used for storage tanks.
24. Extra Shift Allowance for OWM Solvent Unit:
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for extra shift allowance for the full year in the OWM Solvent unit due to lack of evidence.
25. Extra Shift Allowance and Additional Depreciation on New Machinery:
The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow extra shift allowance and additional depreciation on new machinery installed in the OWM Solvent unit.
26. Depreciation on Electrical Machinery in OWM Solvent, Ludhiana:
The Tribunal allowed extra shift allowance on electrical machinery installed in the OWM Solvent, Ludhiana.
27. Depreciation on Generator in Oswal Solvent:
The Tribunal allowed depreciation at 20% on the generator installed in the Oswal Solvent unit.
28. Depreciation on Plant and Machinery in Ludhiana Vanaspati Unit:
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for depreciation at 15% on plant and machinery in the Ludhiana Vanaspati unit but allowed extra shift allowance on electrical machinery.
29. Extra Shift Allowance on Electrical Machinery in Oswal Export Wing Unit:
The Tribunal allowed extra shift allowance on electrical machinery installed in the Oswal Export Wing Unit.
30. Extra Shift Allowance on Machinery Installed During the Year:
The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow extra shift allowance on machinery installed during the year under consideration.
31. Depreciation on Building and Furniture of Export Display House:
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for depreciation on the building and furniture of the Export Display House due to lack of evidence.
32. ESA Depreciation on Generator of Main Textile Unit:
The Tribunal allowed ESA depreciation on the generator of the main textile unit, consistent with previous decisions.
33. Deletion of Addition under the Head 'Leave with Wages':
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 2,36,934 made by the ITO under the head 'leave with wages', consistent with previous decisions.
34. Depreciation and Investment Allowance on Grain Analyser:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation and investment allowance on the grain analyser, considering it part of the solvent plant.
35. Deletion of Unexplained Investment on Factory Building:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 8,26,000 for unexplained investment on the factory building, finding no evidence of unaccounted investment.
36. Section 80J Relief in Respect of Refinery Units:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant Section 80J relief in respect of the refinery units, consistent with previous decisions.
37. Foreign Travelling Expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow Rs. 77,713 for foreign travelling expenses under Section 37 but allowed weighted deduction on 50% of the said amount.
38. Deletion of Addition in Madras Solvent Unit:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 20,328 from the Madras Solvent Unit, accepting the assessee's explanation for the loss.
39. Deletion of Addition for Under-Valuation of Closing Stock:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 3,14,462 for under-valuation of closing stock, accepting the assessee's method of valuing closing stock on a direct cost basis.
40. Ad Hoc Addition in Ludhiana Refinery Unit:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 20 lakhs in the Ludhiana Refinery Unit, finding no discrepancy in the books of account.
41. Deletion of Addition in Madras Refinery Unit:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 5,20,000 in the Madras Refinery Unit, finding no material change in facts compared to the earlier year.
42. Ad Hoc Addition in Oswal Solvent Unit and OWM Solvent Unit:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 50 lakhs in the Oswal Solvent Unit and OWM Solvent Unit, finding no discrepancy in the books of account.
43. Deletion of Addition in Ludhiana Vanaspati Unit:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 5 lakhs in the Ludhiana Vanaspati Unit, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving purchases.
44. Unpaid Electricity Bill and Reduction:
The Tribunal allowed the total claim of Rs. 1,03,796 for the electricity bill, consistent with the decision in the assessee's appeal.
45. Investment Allowance on Exhaust Fan and Humidifier:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow investment allowance on exhaust fans and humidifiers, consistent with the decision in the assessee's appeal.
46. Investment Allowance on New Machinery in Ludhiana Refinery Unit and Madras Oil Refinery Unit:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow investment allowance on new machinery in the Ludhiana Refinery Unit and Madras Oil Refinery Unit, consistent with previous decisions.
47. Depreciation on Gas Cylinders:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 100% depreciation on gas cylinders, finding no reason to interfere.
48. Extra Shift Allowance on Storage and Cooling Tower:
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision to allow extra shift allowance on storage and cooling tower, as no claim was made before the ITO.
49. Depreciation on Godowns and Toilets in Factory Premises:
The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the ITO to allow 10% depreciation on toilets and 5% on godowns.
50. Triple Shift Allowance on Vanaspati Plant:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow triple shift allowance on the Vanaspati Plant, considering it had worked triple shift for more than 240 days.
51. Additional Depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia):
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow additional depreciation, as the machinery was new and installed after 31st March 1980.
52. Depreciation on Building of Export Display House:
The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s decision, reducing the depreciation to 2.5% and confirming that the building was used in the business interest of the company.
Conclusion:
Both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed, with detailed issue-wise decisions provided above.
-
1986 (7) TMI 161
Issues:
1. Whether ropeway for carriage of timber constitutes a manufacturing activity for investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act.
Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the assessee for investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act for the assessment year 1981-82. The primary issue was whether the ropeway used for the carriage of timber by the assessee could be considered a manufacturing activity, thus entitling the assessee to the investment allowance. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) contended that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing or production activities, as their business solely involved the transportation of timber through a ropeway. Consequently, the ITO disallowed the claim for investment allowance. However, the CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, citing a previous order for the assessment year 1980-81. The CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A and directed the ITO to allow the investment allowance amounting to Rs. 1,34,480. This decision by the CIT(A) was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal.
In a related appeal for the assessment year 1980-81, the Tribunal had previously held that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacturing or production of goods but solely in the business of transporting goods through a rope transport system. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored that of the ITO. The Revenue, relying on this precedent, argued that the order of the CIT(A) for the current assessment year should also be reversed. The assessee's counsel, on the other hand, sought a review of the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the ropeway construction involved manufacturing activity, referencing various legal precedents and judgments to support this argument.
After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the primary business of the assessee was the transportation of timber, and the ropeway was merely an asset required for this activity. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of s. 32A of the IT Act, which allow for investment allowance on machinery or plant used for the business of manufacturing or production of goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the business of the assessee was not the manufacturing or production of ropeways but the transportation of timber using the ropeways. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that assembling components for the ropeway constituted manufacturing activity, citing legal precedents that defined industrial activity as continuous engagement in manufacturing as a principal business.
Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the term "industrial undertaking" implied the existence of a factory, which was not applicable in the case of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the dismantling of the ropeway after the contract with M/s Babu Ram & Sons was over indicated that it was not a continuous manufacturing process. Additionally, the Tribunal interpreted the term "road transport" broadly to encompass various modes of transportation, including ropeways. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT(A) and reinstated that of the ITO, thereby allowing the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the Revenue, holding that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act for the assessment year 1981-82.
-
1986 (7) TMI 160
Issues:
- Whether the AAC erred in deleting additions made by the ITO on profits earned from the sale of plots.
- Whether income from instalments received for the sale of plots is taxable before the execution of the sale deed.
- Whether the judgments of the Gujarat High Court and the Bombay High Court are applicable in determining the taxability of such income.
- Whether the High Court judgment in the case of Smt. Kala Rani vs. CIT supports the Revenue's position on assessing income from property under the IT Act.
Analysis:
1. The appeals before the ITAT Chandigarh concerned the deletion of additions made by the ITO on profits earned from the sale of plots by the assessee. The AAC had deleted the additions, leading to the Revenue's appeal.
2. The key issue was whether the income from instalments received for the sale of plots was taxable before the execution of the sale deed. The ITO contended that such income was taxable, while the assessee argued that no profits could be taxed until the sale deed was executed. The ITO relied on judgments from the Bombay High Court and the Patna High Court to support the taxability of the income.
3. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Asha Land Corporation, arguing that income should not be included until the sale deed was executed and registered. The AAC favored the assessee's position and deleted the additions made by the ITO for all three years under appeal.
4. The Revenue, represented by the departmental representative, contended that the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Kala Rani vs. CIT supported their position. The High Court had held that income could be assessed even if the sale deed was not registered, based on beneficial ownership and occupation of the property.
5. The ITAT, in its judgment, considered the possession of lands by the assessee, distinguishing between registered and unregistered lands. It noted that the assessee had sold properties without acquiring legal ownership through a registered deed but had passed possession and easement rights to the purchasers. The ITAT concluded that the receipts from such sales were business income from real estate, reversing the AAC's orders and restoring those of the ITO.
6. Ultimately, the ITAT allowed the appeals in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the nature of the transactions and the possession of lands by the assessee as key factors in determining the taxability of the income from the sale of plots.
-
1986 (7) TMI 159
Issues:
Continuance of registration under s. 184(7) allowed by AAC but rejected by ITO.
Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolves around the continuation of registration for a partnership firm for the assessment year 1981-82. The firm, consisting of two partners with equal shares, had a history of accepted registration claims in the past. However, for the year in question, the Form No. 12 required for registration was not initially filed along with the return. Despite multiple reminders from the ITO, the form was only submitted after the assessment was framed under s. 143(1) with a status of URF. The ITO rejected the claim for registration continuation citing the delay and the apparent disregard of the assessee to comply with the requirements.
The AAC, on the other hand, accepted the assessee's claim for continuation of registration based on the argument that the Form No. 12 was filed before the assessment under s. 143(3). The counsel for the assessee contended that the assessment under s. 143(1) was essentially nullified due to subsequent proceedings and that the filing of Form No. 12 was not mandatory but directory. The counsel relied on a case law to support this argument.
The departmental representative argued against the AAC's decision, emphasizing that registration continuation is not an absolute right and should not be granted if the assessee displays carelessness. However, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, noting that the delay in filing Form No. 12 was condoned based on the affidavits provided by the partners and the accountant. The Tribunal found that the delay did not outweigh the consistent history of registration for the firm and the partners, especially since the ITO had granted registration in the past and subsequent years.
Ultimately, the Tribunal confirmed the AAC's decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance while also considering the factual background and the consistency of past practices in determining the continuation of registration for a partnership firm.
-
1986 (7) TMI 158
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the authority to make the reference application.
2. Use of the incorrect form for the reference application.
3. Timeliness and procedural compliance in filing the reference application.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Competency of the Authority to Make the Reference Application
The primary objection raised by the assessee's counsel was that the reference application was made by the Commissioner of Income-tax instead of the Commissioner of Gift-tax, who had no locus standi in the matter. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Commissioner of Gift-tax were the same person, Shri Balwant Singh, and that he had signed the application in his capacity as the Commissioner of Gift-tax. The Tribunal found this to be a case of misdescription rather than a lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal cited the Punjab High Court decision in Gian Chand Vir Bhan v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 414, which held that misdescription by a competent person does not invalidate the application. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection regarding the competency of the authority.
Issue 2: Use of the Incorrect Form for the Reference Application
The assessee's counsel argued that the reference application was filed using Form No. 37, which is prescribed under the Income-tax Rules, instead of Form No. 1, which is required under the Gift-tax Rules. The Tribunal acknowledged this procedural defect but noted that the application was signed by the Commissioner of Gift-tax and contained the relevant facts pertaining to gift-tax matters. The Tribunal referred to Behari Lal Laxminarain v. ITO [1960] 39 ITR 649 (All.), which allowed rectification of procedural defects without dismissing the application. The Tribunal directed the revenue to file a proper application in the correct form within 15 days, thus allowing for rectification of the error.
Issue 3: Timeliness and Procedural Compliance in Filing the Reference Application
The assessee's counsel also objected to the late submission of written submissions by the senior departmental representative and the absence of a revised reference application by the date of the hearing. The Tribunal found that these procedural lapses were not sufficient to reject the application outright. The Tribunal cited Addl. CIT v. K. Padmalochan Sahu [1974] 95 ITR 113 (Orissa), which held that procedural defects could be rectified, and the application should not be dismissed solely on these grounds. The Tribunal granted the revenue 15 days to file a revised application in the correct form and with the correct heading.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections raised by the assessee and directed the revenue to file a revised reference application within 15 days. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fairness and the opportunity to rectify procedural errors, citing multiple judicial precedents to support its decision. The case will be heard on its merits once the revised application is received.
-
1986 (7) TMI 157
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 regarding the timing of a gift for assessment purposes.
Analysis:
The appellate tribunal ITAT Chandigarh addressed the issue of whether a gift-tax assessment for the year 1971-72 was correctly annulled by the AAC, who held that the gift took place in the previous year relevant to 1969-70 when possession of land was transferred to the sons, rather than in 1971-72 when a court decree declared the sons as owners. The case involved Smt. Kamla Devi, her sons, and agricultural lands. The GTO initially subjected the land's value to gift-tax despite observing the court decree as collusive. The AAC found that the court declaration merely affirmed an existing fact and annulled the assessment order, prompting the revenue to appeal.
During the proceedings, the departmental representative argued against a family settlement, claiming the land solely belonged to Smt. Kamla Devi and that the decree was collusive. However, he contended that the mutation of the property during the relevant accounting year justified the gift-tax. The counsel for the assessee supported the AAC's decision. The tribunal examined the conflicting arguments, highlighting the revenue's inconsistency in labeling the suit as collusive while relying on it for the mutation effect. The tribunal emphasized the contents of the plaint filed for the court decree, which detailed the family partition and possession of the land by the sons.
Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, stating that the gift did not occur during the relevant accounting period for the assessment year under consideration. The tribunal found that the suit's collusive nature undermined the revenue's claims of a family partition and subsequent gift. The transfer was deemed to relate back to a period preceding the relevant accounting year. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the AAC's ruling and emphasizing the timing of the gift for tax assessment purposes.
In conclusion, the tribunal's detailed analysis and interpretation of the Gift-tax Act led to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal, underscoring the importance of accurately determining the timing of gifts for tax assessment in cases involving property transfers and court decrees.
-
1986 (7) TMI 156
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of goodwill based on net annual average commercial profit.
2. Deletion of specific amounts related to goodwill.
3. Inclusion of goodwill in the estate.
4. Rate of interest and managerial remuneration for goodwill computation.
5. Inclusion of lineal descendants' share for rate of duty calculation.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Computation of Goodwill Based on Net Annual Average Commercial Profit:
The revenue contended that the Appellate Controller erred in holding that goodwill should be computed on the basis of net annual average commercial profit, allowing deductions for 18% return on average capital employed and 25% for managerial remuneration. The Appellate Controller directed that goodwill should be computed after ascertaining the net annual average commercial profit for three years, allowing deductions for normal interest at 18% and managerial remuneration at 25%. The Tribunal agreed that the net annual average commercial profit is the proper method for computing goodwill, considering various factors like type of business, location, and earning capacity.
2. Deletion of Specific Amounts Related to Goodwill:
The revenue also contended that the Appellate Controller erred in deleting specific amounts related to goodwill of three firms. The Assistant Controller had included goodwill based on a letter from the accountable person, which was later withdrawn. The Appellate Controller noted that the Assistant Controller did not consider the subsequent letters withdrawing the initial computation. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Controller did consider these letters but did not provide a separate computation. The Tribunal directed that the Assistant Controller should verify the figures and recompute the goodwill, considering all relevant factors and documents.
3. Inclusion of Goodwill in the Estate:
The accountable person argued that no goodwill should be included in the estate. The Appellate Controller held that goodwill, if any, must be included. The Tribunal agreed with the authorities that there was goodwill in the concerns in which the deceased had an interest, based on various High Court decisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the value of goodwill should be computed considering all relevant factors and documents.
4. Rate of Interest and Managerial Remuneration for Goodwill Computation:
The revenue argued that the deductions for 18% interest and 25% managerial remuneration were excessive. The Tribunal found the 18% interest rate, including a risk element, to be high and reduced it to 15%. The Tribunal also directed that managerial remuneration should be considered only if it was not already deducted in the commercial profit computation. The Tribunal emphasized that the goodwill computation should be based on net annual average commercial profit, excluding disallowances and additions from the assessment.
5. Inclusion of Lineal Descendants' Share for Rate of Duty Calculation:
The Appellate Controller deleted the inclusion of the lineal descendants' share, following the Supreme Court's dismissal of a special leave petition in a similar case. The revenue argued that this dismissal did not establish a binding precedent. The Tribunal noted conflicting High Court decisions on this issue but found that the Calcutta High Court upheld the inclusion of lineal descendants' share for rate purposes. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Controller to include only the share of the lineal descendants, excluding the share of the widow or wife of coparceners, for rate calculation under section 34(1)(c).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal, modifying the Appellate Controller's order to reduce the interest rate to 15% and directing the Assistant Controller to recompute the goodwill, considering all relevant factors and documents. The Tribunal also directed the inclusion of the lineal descendants' share for rate purposes, excluding the share of the widow or wife of coparceners.
-
1986 (7) TMI 155
The assessee sought rectification in the Tribunal's order regarding penalty proceedings under the WT Act for asst. yrs. 1971-72 & 1972-73. The Tribunal initially disagreed with the AAC's finding but later rectified the order based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mayarani Punj, directing re-computation of penalties from 1st Jan., 1974. The Department's appeals were dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 154
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessment was completed within the prescribed time as per the provisions of section 153(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of the term "forwards" in Explanation 1(iv) to section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the assessment was completed within the prescribed time as per the provisions of section 153(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee, a limited company engaged in the business of exporting shellac, contested that the assessment for the year 1980-81 was barred by limitation. According to section 153(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessment should have been completed by 31-3-1983. However, the assessment was completed on 18-8-1983, resulting in a delay of 140 days. Explanation 1(iv) to section 153 allows for an extension of up to 180 days from the date the Income-tax Officer (ITO) forwards the draft order to the assessee until the ITO receives directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC). The assessee argued that the draft order was forwarded on 16-12-1982 and not on 2-12-1982, as claimed by the ITO, making the assessment barred by limitation by five days.
2. Interpretation of the term "forwards" in Explanation 1(iv) to section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The central issue was the interpretation of the term "forwards" used in Explanation 1(iv) to section 153. The assessee argued that forwarding begins only when the draft order is communicated to the assessee, i.e., on 16-12-1982. They cited several legal precedents to support their argument that an order affecting the rights of a person must be communicated to be effective.
The department countered that the term "forwards" does not mean "issued" or "received." They argued that the forwarding process begins when the ITO signs the draft order and the forwarding letter, which occurred on 2-12-1982. They cited case laws to support their position that the order is considered made on the date it is signed, not when it is communicated.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal considered both parties' contentions and the facts on record. It noted that the term "forwards" is distinct from "issue" or "serve," as used elsewhere in the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the forwarding process begins when the ITO signs and dates the draft order and forwarding letter, intending their dispatch. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent and practical application of the Act. The Tribunal found that the delay of 14 days in the office of the ITO was not abnormal or unreasonable and that the entire extended period was within the 180-day ceiling prescribed by the Act.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the ITO forwarded the draft order on 2-12-1982, making the assessment completed on 18-8-1983 within the extended period allowed by Explanation 1(iv) to section 153. Consequently, the assessment was valid in law, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 153
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the return filed on 15-12-1982 should be treated as a return under section 139(4) or section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward the loss determined in the return filed on 15-12-1982.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Treatment of Return Filed on 15-12-1982:
The assessee contended that the return filed on 15-12-1982 should be treated as a return under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) treated it as a return filed in response to a notice under section 148, issued due to the non-filing of the original return. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 139, which prescribes various eventualities for filing returns. It was noted that the return was not filed under section 139(1) or section 139(2). However, it was filed within two years from the end of the assessment year and before the assessment was made, fitting the criteria under section 139(4). The Tribunal concluded that the return should be treated as a return under section 139(4), allowing the assessee to carry forward the loss.
2. Entitlement to Carry Forward the Loss:
The Tribunal analyzed the implications of section 148, which allows the ITO to issue a notice for assessing or reassessing income that has escaped assessment. The Tribunal observed that section 148 should not negate the assessee's right to file a return under section 139(4). The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court decision in Telster Advertising (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, which held that a return filed under section 139(4) should be treated as if it were filed under section 139(1), entitling the assessee to carry forward the loss. The Tribunal also considered the provisions of section 148, which state that a notice under section 148 should be treated as a notice under section 139(2). Consequently, the return filed in response to a notice under section 148 should be deemed a return under section 139(2), allowing the loss to be carried forward.
The Tribunal rejected the department's contention that the benefit of carrying forward the loss should be denied due to the late filing of the return. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to file a return within two years under section 139(4) cannot be taken away by issuing a notice under section 148. The Tribunal further noted that if the notice under section 148 is deemed invalid due to no income escaping assessment, the return should be treated as filed under section 139(4).
Analysis of Department's Reliance on Case Laws:
The Tribunal examined the cases cited by the department, including Kevaldas Ranchhodas v. CIT, S. Natarajan v. CIT, and Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal found that these cases did not support the department's position as they dealt with different factual scenarios where returns were already filed, or the losses were not computed in the original assessments. The Tribunal concluded that these cases did not address the specific issue of denying the carry forward of loss determined in a return filed under section 139(4) or in response to a notice under section 148.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the return filed on 15-12-1982 should be treated as a return under section 139(4) and that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the loss determined in that return. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of section 148 do not override the assessee's right to file a return under section 139(4) and carry forward the loss.
-
1986 (7) TMI 152
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Commissioner's action under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determinability of beneficiaries' shares in the master trust.
3. Legitimacy of the Commissioner's reliance on external records.
4. Classification of the trust as a discretionary trust.
5. Legitimacy of the tax planning vs. tax evasion.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Commissioner's Action under Section 263:
The Commissioner issued a notice under section 263, asserting that there was a misapplication of section 164 of the Income-tax Act, leading to an erroneous and prejudicial assessment to the interests of the revenue. The appellant trust contended that the Commissioner erred in looking into the records of cases other than that of the appellant for initiating proceedings under section 263. However, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner, stating that he was entitled to examine the records of the subsidiary trusts as they were part of the chain that started with the master trust and ended with the association of persons who were the ultimate beneficiaries.
2. Determinability of Beneficiaries' Shares in the Master Trust:
The appellant argued that the master trust identified the beneficiaries and specified their shares, making them determinate. The Commissioner, however, concluded that the determinability of the beneficiaries' shares at the first stage was disregarded, and the trust was taxed as if the shares were indeterminate. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's view, noting that the ultimate beneficiaries were a closely-knit group of persons from the same family, thus supporting the Commissioner's conclusion that the shares were effectively indeterminate.
3. Legitimacy of the Commissioner's Reliance on External Records:
The appellant objected to the Commissioner's reliance on records from other cases, arguing that the trust deeds of the subsidiary trusts were not part of the present case's records. The Tribunal dismissed this objection, agreeing with the Commissioner that examining the records of the subsidiary trusts was necessary to understand the entire scheme and its implications for tax liability.
4. Classification of the Trust as a Discretionary Trust:
The departmental representative argued that the master trust itself was a discretionary trust, pointing to specific clauses in the trust deed. The appellant countered that the case before the Commissioner had not proceeded on these lines and that the clauses cited were general in nature, dealing with the investment of funds. The Tribunal did not pronounce its opinion on whether the master trust was a discretionary trust, focusing instead on the broader issue of tax avoidance.
5. Legitimacy of the Tax Planning vs. Tax Evasion:
The appellant contended that the scheme was a legitimate case of tax planning within the four corners of the law. The Commissioner and the Tribunal, however, viewed the scheme as a case of tax evasion. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in McDowell & Co. Ltd., which emphasized that tax avoidance schemes, even if not illegal, could be scrutinized for their intended fiscal effects. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's scheme was designed to avoid tax liability, thus falling under the category of tax evasion rather than legitimate tax planning.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the consolidated order under section 263 passed by the Commissioner, dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant trust. The Tribunal emphasized that the scheme devised by the appellant was a tax avoidance scheme, effectively evading tax liability through an associated operation involving multiple trusts and associations of persons, all closely related to each other. The Tribunal's decision was significantly influenced by the Supreme Court's stance on tax avoidance as articulated in McDowell & Co. Ltd.'s case.
-
1986 (7) TMI 151
Issues:
- Penalty under section 271(1)(a) for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79.
- Consideration of extension of time for filing returns.
- Applicability of section 139(4) regarding filing of returns.
- Legal implications of non-reply to extension applications.
- Interpretation of relevant case laws on time extensions and penalty levies.
Analysis:
1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(a):
- The appeals were against the order of the AAC where penalties of Rs. 4,330 for 1977-78 and Rs. 8,100 for 1978-79 were deleted.
- The ITO levied penalties due to delays in filing returns, but the AAC found that extensions of time were sought by the assessee, which were not considered by the ITO. The penalties were canceled based on this ground.
2. Consideration of Extension of Time:
- The AAC noted that for both years, the assessee had filed applications seeking extensions of time, which were not rejected by the department.
- The AAC concluded that since the time asked for was not refused, it should be presumed that the extensions were granted, leading to the deletion of penalties.
3. Applicability of Section 139(4):
- The department argued that returns were filed under section 139(4), precluding the assessee from applying for extensions. However, the assessee contended that applications for extensions were filed in Form no. 6 before the due dates, indicating an intent to file under section 139(1).
4. Non-Reply to Extension Applications:
- The assessee pointed out that the ITO did not consider the replies to show cause notices, where details of extension applications were provided. The ITO's failure to reply was argued to imply the granting of extensions.
5. Interpretation of Case Laws:
- The assessee relied on legal precedents such as the Gauhati High Court and Bombay High Court decisions, emphasizing that non-replies to extension applications should be deemed as granting extensions.
- Reference was also made to a Supreme Court decision where interest levied was deemed as an extension of time for filing returns, leading to the cancellation of penalties under section 271(1)(a).
6. Final Decision:
- After considering all submissions and relevant authorities, the ITAT upheld the AAC's orders for both assessment years, confirming the deletion of penalties.
- Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed, affirming the decision to cancel the penalties imposed by the ITO.
-
1986 (7) TMI 150
Issues:
Reopening of assessment based on alleged non-disclosure of material facts; Validity of reopening under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Interpretation of sections 45, 49, and 55(2) in relation to cost of acquisition of shares; Substitution of market price as on 1-1-1954 for cost of acquisition; Ownership and transfer of shares in case of trust settlement and revocation.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the department and a cross-objection by the assessee concerning the assessment year 1971-72 and long-term capital gains on the sale of shares. The original return declared a capital gain of Rs. 1,43,957, with the cost of acquisition based on the market value as on 1-1-1954. The reopening of the assessment was challenged by the assessee, arguing that all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment. The ITO reopened the assessment based on an audit note stating that the shares sold were different from those settled on trust, thus questioning the cost of acquisition. The Commissioner (Appeals) held the reopening invalid under section 147(b), canceling the reassessment order. The department appealed this decision.
During the proceedings, the ITO's reasons for reopening highlighted alleged non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee regarding the substitution of market price as on 1-1-1954 for the cost of shares acquired prior to 1-1-1954. The Tribunal noted that all material facts were on record during the original assessment, including the trust revocation in 1963 and a government circular clarifying the treatment of converted shares for capital gains tax purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the opinion of the revenue audit on a legal question did not justify reopening without actual non-disclosure of material facts. As such, the reassessment was deemed unjustified under section 147(a).
Regarding the cross-objection, the Tribunal analyzed the ownership and transfer of shares in the case of trust settlement and revocation. It was established that no transfer occurred when shares were converted, and the assessee, as the original owner, had the right to substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1954 for the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal confirmed the cancellation of the reassessment order and restoration of the original assessment, allowing the assessee's cross-objection while dismissing the department's appeal.
-
1986 (7) TMI 149
Issues:
1. Valuation of property passing on death based on surplus income from sub-tenancy.
2. Determining whether the deceased held any asset and if it constituted property passing on death.
3. Calculation of the value of the deceased's right in the premises for estate duty assessment.
Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the valuation of property passing on death, specifically focusing on the surplus income generated from a sub-tenancy arrangement. The deceased, along with a co-tenant, sublet premises to a company, resulting in a surplus of Rs. 3,381 per month. The Assistant Controller valued this surplus at Rs. 1,16,570, differing from the accountable person's valuation of Rs. 20,332. The Controller (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Controller's valuation, leading to an appeal. The Tribunal confirmed the valuation, considering the length of the period for which the surplus was available and the certainty of receiving the amount, based on permissions obtained. The Tribunal rejected the alternate submission for valuation and upheld the Assistant Controller's computation based on actual income from the sub-tenant.
2. The issue of whether the deceased held any asset that constituted property passing on death was raised. The accountable person argued that the deceased, as a monthly tenant, did not hold any asset despite the income generated from sub-tenancy. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the tenancy right, protected under Rent Control Act and with the landlord's consent for subletting, constituted property passing on death. The Tribunal cited the wide interpretation of the term 'property' and previous legal precedents to support this conclusion.
3. The Tribunal addressed the calculation of the value of the deceased's right in the premises for estate duty assessment. It determined that the capitalization of the net income from the deceased's right would represent the value of the property passing on death. The Tribunal disagreed with the submission to use standard rent for valuation, emphasizing that the actual income from the sub-tenant should be the basis for computing the surplus for capitalization. Legal precedents were cited to support this approach, and the Tribunal confirmed the Assistant Controller's computation as appropriate, rejecting the alternate valuation method proposed by the accountable person.
-
1986 (7) TMI 148
The appeal was made by the Revenue against the AAC's order for asst. yr. 1980-81 regarding a loan at concessional rate of interest to the assessee. The ITO added Rs. 3608 as perquisite, but the AAC deleted it based on previous tribunal decisions. The ITAT Bombay-C upheld the AAC's decision, stating that legislative changes indicated the intention not to treat the interest rate difference as a perquisite. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 147
The Revenue appealed against the AAC's order for asst. yr. 1980-81 regarding a housing loan granted at a concessional rate of interest. The ITO added Rs. 3608 as perquisite, but the AAC deleted it based on previous tribunal decisions. The ITAT upheld the AAC's decision, stating that the legislature's actions indicated that the difference in interest rates was not to be considered a perquisite under s. 17(2) of the IT Act. The appeal was dismissed. (Case: Appellate Tribunal ITAT BOMBAY-C, Citation: 1986 (7) TMI 147 - ITAT BOMBAY-C)
-
1986 (7) TMI 146
Issues:
1. Taxability of payments made by Indian companies to a non-resident company for services rendered.
2. Interpretation of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany.
3. Classification of payments as royalty or commercial profits.
Analysis:
The judgment deals with three appeals where both the Department and the assessee contested the findings of the Commissioner for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The assessee, a non-resident company based in West Germany, had entered into contracts with Indian companies for rendering engineering services. The dispute arose regarding the taxability of payments made by Indian companies to the assessee. The assessee argued that the payments should not be taxable in India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany as the assessee had no permanent establishment in India.
The Commissioner partially agreed with the assessee, holding that payments from certain Indian companies were fees for technical services and not taxable in India. However, payments from other Indian companies were classified as royalty and deemed taxable. The Department disagreed with the Commissioner's findings, arguing that all payments should be treated as royalty and taxed accordingly.
During the hearing, both parties relied on the decision in Siemens Bktiengeselschaft vs. ITO, where it was established that payments received by the assessee were considered royalty under the IT Act but not under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the term "royalty" in the Agreement excluded business receipts and should be interpreted based on the law at the time of the agreement, not subsequent amendments to the IT Act.
Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Department's appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee. The judgment emphasized the distinction between royalty and commercial profits, highlighting the importance of interpreting international agreements in line with the law at the time of their enactment.
............
|
9911796707
