|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 235 Records
-
1983 (8) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-D
Revocable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ve persons who have to utilise the funds of the trust to the best advantage of the beneficiaries and they have been utilising the funds to the best advantage of the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries are the employees of the assessee-company and the dependent members of the families of the employees. The trust deed itself contains the definition of the expressions employees , beneficiaries and dependent members of the family of such an employee . It, thus, cannot be said that the beneficiaries of the trust cannot be indicated with reasonable certainty. We, thus, do not find any reason to disallow the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 claimed by the assessee. This amount of Rs. 5,00,000 is admissible under section 37. 25. The judgments in Atherton s case and Allahabad Bank Ltd. s case are distinguishable on facts. These judgments do not help the revenue in any manner. 26. and 27. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues. 28. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI-D
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... t of appeal, be it income-tax law or any other law. Therefore, the so-called distinction made by him between the income-tax law and the civil law pales into insignificance. It is also undisputed that whenever a right of appeal is given, the conditions required for filing a valid appeal have to be fulfilled and nobody can dispute this proposition. What we are concerned here is whether the assessee should be given an opportunity if at all there is a mistake, especially a mistake of the kind we have noticed in the present case. It is also incorrect to observe that the defect in this case goes to the root of the appeal. Mistake is very trivial and it does not affect the substantial right of the assessee in filing the appeal. 5. In view of the above, we restore the appeal to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to him to allow the assessee to rectify the defect which has been noticed and dispose of the appeal on merits according to law. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 113 - ITAT DELHI-D
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... nt is lost and irrecoverable. It is impossible to hold that the assessee has lost the rent or that it became irrecoverable. Merely because the assessee instituted legal proceedings for the recovery of the unpaid rent, it cannot be held for a moment that the rent was lost or that it became irrecoverable. In order to prove that the rent is lost or that it became irrecoverable, the rule making authority thought fit to provide that the assessee must satisfy the ITO that he took reasonable steps to institute legal proceedings. The various subsidiary conditions mentioned in rule 4 are some sort of rules of evidence or guidelines for the purpose of recording the basic and essential finding that the rent is lost or that it is irrecoverable. 4. In view of the above, the assessee cannot get the benefit of deduction and the AAC erred in directing the deduction claimed by the assessee. The order of the AAC is reversed and that of the ITO restored. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI-C
In Part, Net Wealth, Share In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... he first argument. Therefore, the judgment of their Lordships of the Delhi High Court do not help the revenue. 5. The second question that arises is whether the claim of the assessee falls within section 10(16) or not. We would rather like the Act itself to speak than us 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included-- (16) scholarships granted to meet the cost of education The certificate issued by the Institution speaks of the scholarship for meeting cost of education, etc., and, therefore, the same squarely falls within section 10(16) and we hold it so. In that view of the matter, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding the amount of Rs. 1,55,400 as exempt from tax. In coming to this decision as we have done, we have sought active support from the judgment of their Lordships of the Karnataka High Court in A. Ratnakar s case. 6. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 111 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... al Representative had placed reliance on the order of the Special Bench in the case of M/s Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation. In that case the assessee reduced the Export Invoice value of the goods by adopting disparity rate of 48 mdash and the balance so arrived at was taken as cost of the goods in closing stock. The dispute was whether this method should be accepted for valuation of closing stock. The ITO had allowed disparity rate of 40 per cent and on that basis an addition of more than Rs. 7 lakhs was made. That addition, was deleted by the CIT(A) and the Revenue rsquo s appeal challenging the deletion of the addition made by the ITO was dismissed by the Special Bench. That order of the Special Bench has no relevancy to the issue involved in this case. 15. For the aforesaid reasons I agree with the view of the ld. Judicial Member. This file may now be sent to the Jaipur Bench for passing an order under s. 24(11) of the WT Act, 1957 read with s. 255(4) of the IT Act, 1961.
-
1983 (8) TMI 110 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... d circumstances. Having perused the orders of the authorities below, we are unable to record a finding of lack of bona fides in letting out property of the assessee rsquo s sons by the assessee. It may be also remembered that perhaps it is more advisable to let out the property to one rsquo s own relation, inasmuch as, they can be easily requested to vacate at a future time. 6. In view of the above findings there is no difficulty in holding that the A.L.V. of the property should be decided on the basis of the actual rent even though it is lesser than the municipal valuation. The reason is that for the first five years agreed rent would be the standard rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act and it is also made clear by the decision of the Supreme Court in (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 311 (1981) 131 ITR 435(SC) (Sheila Kaushish, Mrs. vs. CIT rsquo s case). The decision of theDelhi Courtalso fully applies in view of our findings. 7. In the above view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 109 - ITAT DELHI-B
Closing Stock, In Part, Market Value, Partner In Firm, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... e had placed reliance on the order of the Special Bench in the case of Cosmopolitan Trading Corpn. In that case, the assessee reduced the export invoice value of the goods by adopting disparity rate of 48 per cent and the balance so arrived at was taken as cost of the goods in closing stock. The dispute was whether this method should be accepted for valuation of closing stock. The ITO had allowed disparity rate of 40 per cent and on that basis an addition of more than Rs. 7 lakhs was made. That addition was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the revenue s appeal challenging the deletion of the addition made by the ITO was dismissed by the Special Bench. That order of the Special Bench has no relevancy to the issue involved in this case. 15. For the aforesaid reasons I agree with the view of the learned Judicial Member. This file may now be sent to the Jaipur Bench for passing an order under section 24(11) of the Act read with section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1983 (8) TMI 108 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... d for this proposition we rely upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of CGT Bombay vs. Smt. Kusumban D. Mahadevia (1980) 14 CTR (SC) 366 (1980) 122 ITR 38 (SC). 10. In a very recent decision dt. 7th Feb, 1983 titled as CIT vs. Shiv Prasad as reported in (1983) 14 Taxman 118 (P and H) their Lordships of the Hon rsquo ble Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that where a question of law involved in the case was fully converted by a division Bench Judgement of the Court, the Tribunal was right in deelining to refer the case for the opinion of the said court because the court had already expressed the opinion on that law point and no useful purpose would have been served by making a reference. Their Lordships further observed that in such a case the proper remedy for the revenue was to take matter to the Supreme Court. 11. In view of our discussion as above, we decline to draw up statement of cases and reject these reference applications.
-
1983 (8) TMI 107 - ITAT DELHI-A
Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... t case, as we have brought out above, the assessment orders were passed long before the Finance Act of 1980. Insofar as the rectification proceedings and the rectification orders passed by the ITO in the present case are concerned, they were initiated and made after section 80J(1A) was incorporated by virtue of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980. The present case is not one where the order of rectification has been made prior to the aforesaid passing of the Finance Act, 1980. The present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. and S. A. L. Narayan Row. As in those cases, in the present case the Finance Act of 1980 was passed with retrospective effect from 1-4-1972 and in view of the incorporation of section 80J(1A) the present case became a case of mistake apparent from the record in the background of the Amending Act. We hold likewise. 7. In the result, the appeals by the assessee fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 106 - ITAT DELHI-A
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Development Allowance, Expenditure Incurred, Foreign Currency, Hybrid System, Protective Assessment, Weighted Deduction
-
1983 (8) TMI 105 - ITAT COCHIN
Firm, Cancellation Of Registration ... ... ... ... ..... ame of one of the partners, the firm has contravened the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act. The provisions of sections 27 and 52 relied on by the revenue should be read and understood in the context of the definition of a dealer as found in section 2 and not de hors the same. This apart, the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Raveendra Engg. Construction Co. though rendered in the context of Abkari Act would be of avail to the assessee for the preposition that there is no illegality in the carrying on of the business by the firm by exploiting the licence held in the name of one of its partners the partner allowing the firm to utilise the licence in conjunction with other persons does not in effect transfer the licence in favour of the firm. From the partnership deed it is seen that he has not transferred the licence to and in favour of the firm. For these reasons, we uphold the order of the Dy. CIT (Appeals). 4. In the result, the revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 104 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ur of the assessee and requires the Revenue to produce in rebuttal evidence if the evidence produced by the assessee is to rejected and addition is to be made by rejection thereof. This however has not been done. 13. We also find that the books of account of the assessee have not been doubted at all. The ITO has in fact given a certification to the assessee that he entries regarding high denomination notes of Rs. 9,000 have been made in the case book in the ordinary course. If that be so in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal chand Bhagat Ambika Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) no addition could be made to the total income of the assessee on the facts of the case relating to the tendering of and receiving in exchange the value of 9 high denomination notes or Rs. 1,000 each. Thus we find on merits no case made out for making this addition. The assessee therefore succeeds. The additions of Rs. 9,000 is directed to be deleted. 14. Appeal allowed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 103 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... otices dated 26th March, 1973 and 4th February, 1974 require to be struck down. The Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Navinchandra Mohanlal Parikh also supports the contention of the assessee, though it was on a different set of facts. There what under consideration was whether the ITO can reopen an assessment on the ground that certain plot of land which the assessee owned in certain areas had been under-valued on the basis of only material for the ITO s belief that in some other assessment proceedings another plot in the same area was assessed at a high value. 6. After taking into consideration the view as available from the citations from both the parties, we find that the assessee s case is directly supported by the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Tulsidas Kilachand and the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 17(1)(b), therefore, cannot hold the field. The re-assessment is, therefore, ordered to be cancelled. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 102 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... for making the payment as done by the assessee, the profit yielding apparatus of the assessee would not have been with the assessee because u/s 36(b), the authority granting the licence was vested with the powers of cancellation as well as suspension of such a licence. If the licence had been cancelled or suspended the business of the assessee would have come to an end. In the context of this, the payment made by the assessee is by a trader and it was incidental to the trade of the assessee inextricately linked with the carrying on of the business of the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the amount claimed by the assessee was expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the business of the assessee and was admissible as deduction in computing the total income for the year under appeal. The authorities below erred in not allowing it. We set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct the ITO to allow the claim of the assessee. 10. Appeal allowed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 101 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... side of the assessee considered by the AAC, held that the income which arises from assets by a process of business activity carried on with the aid or help of the transferred assets, cannot be included u/s 16(3) of the old Act. In the case before me, though there was a gift by the assessee to his daughter-in-law but the gift was about two months before the reconstitution of the firm. In the case of Prem Bhai Parekh, the gift was a day before constitution of the firm. Even then, the Hon ble Supreme Court held the view that there was no proximate connection. In the case of the assessee. There is an additional risk of carrying on business with all its contigencies of profits and losses. Therefore, the AAC was right in holding that there is no proximate connection between transfer of Rs. 10,000 by the assess to his daughter-in-law and her becoming a partner participating in the business of the firm and earning profit therefrom. 10. In the result, revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 100 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... TR 236 (SC). The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Simpson and Co. 1980 122 ITR 283 observed that ordinarily, any statute would have to be construed on the language it employs. But in the case of a fiscal statute, the rule is that if there are two ways in which a provision could be construed, the construction most beneficial to the subject should be adopted. The revenue wanted us that we should adopt the more reasonable view if there are judgments in support of the rival contentions. We are unable to appreciate this submission. Placed as we are, the views of all the Hon ble High Courts carry the same weight. Therefore, we cannot say one view is more reasonable than the other. All that we can say is that there are two reasonable views possible and in such a situation the view that favours the assessee has to be adopted in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. As such we do not find any substance in the appeal of the revenue. 11. Appeal dismissed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 99 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Acquisition Of Immovable Property, Acquisition Proceedings, Fair Market Value, Movable Property, Valuation Report
-
1983 (8) TMI 98 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Rectification Of Mistakes, Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... veral factors including the intention with which and the purpose for which such retention or appropriation has been made because the substance of the matter is to be regarded and in this context the primary dictionary meaning of the term reserve may have to be availed of. It follows, therefore, that the question whether a particular amount is a reserve or not is a highly complex matter which can only be determined by an elaborate and long-drawn process of reasoning and by investigation of facts as well as the case laws decided on the subject. In any event, there being no obvious or patent mistake in the original order of assessment, the ITO was incompetent to pass the order of rectification in terms of section 13. 5. In view of what has been stated above, we decline to go into the merits of the case as in our opinion, the second ground taken by the department does not arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 97 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Closing Stock ... ... ... ... ..... when the rate of tax chargeable on the assessee in two different years is different but in the case of income of a company, tax is attracted at a uniform rate, and whether the deduction in respect of bonus was granted in the assessment year 1952-53 or in the assessment year corresponding to the accounting year 1952, that is in the assessment year 1953-54, should be a matter of no consequence to the department and one should have thought that the department would not fritter away its energies in fighting matters of this kind. But, obviously, judging from the references that come up to us every now and then, the department appears to delight in raising points of the character which do not affect the taxability of the assessee or the tax that the department is likely to collect from him whether in one year or the other. Consequently, even on this ground, the revaluation of closing stock was not proper. 20 and 21. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1983 (8) TMI 96 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Capital Asset, Partnership Firm, Raw Material, Share In Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... distributed assets of the firm. So, there cannot be any doubt that what the assessee received under the three heads was really value of his share in the partnership firm on distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of the firm within the meaning of section 47(ii) and as such was not taxable. So, we are of the opinion that the contention of the department that it was a case of retirement of the assessee from the firm and that the amount received by him is taxable has to be overruled. The learned lawyer for the assessee had made alternative submissions before us in case we held it to be a case of retirement and not of dissolution. But as we have come to the finding that it was a case of dissolution of the firm, we do not propose to discuss the alternative arguments submitted by the learned lawyer for the assessee. 10. As a result, the appeal succeeds. The ITO is directed to exclude the amounts in dispute from the taxable income of the assessee in making the assessment.
............
|
