|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 216 Records
-
1988 (9) TMI 98
Issues Involved:
1. Status of the assessee (Individual vs. HUF)
2. Penalties under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act
3. Bona fide belief regarding the status of the assessee
4. Impact of judicial pronouncements on the assessee's belief
Detailed Analysis:
1. Status of the Assessee (Individual vs. HUF):
The primary issue revolves around whether the assessee should be assessed as an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The assessee, Mr. Ramaswamy, filed returns in the status of an individual for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. However, for the assessment year 1977-78, the income-tax assessment was completed in the status of HUF. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed the assessee's appeal, but the department preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Prem Chand v. CIT, which held that the joint family character of the property received by the husband at partition does not change even if a portion is given to the wife. The marital bond and the status of HUF continue as long as the marital tie lasts.
2. Penalties under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act:
Penalties were levied by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) for not filing returns in the HUF status within the time allowed under law. The AAC confirmed the penalties, emphasizing that filing a return in the correct status is crucial as the tax liability varies depending on the status. The penalties confirmed were as follows:
- Income-tax Act: Rs. 16,926 (1977-78), Rs. 5,127 (1978-79), Rs. 16,189 (1979-80), Rs. 21,042 (1980-81)
- Wealth-tax Act: Rs. 12,120 (1975-76), Rs. 15,862 (1976-77), Rs. 7,540 (1977-78)
3. Bona Fide Belief Regarding the Status of the Assessee:
The assessee contended that he was under a bona fide belief that his status was that of an individual. This belief was based on the partition of family assets between him and his minor son, and the relinquishment of any claim by his wife, Smt. Sarojadevi. The AAC's order dated 13-12-1984, which was in favor of the assessee, further reinforced this belief. The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed returns in the status of an individual within the prescribed time, except for a marginal delay for which a small penalty was paid.
4. Impact of Judicial Pronouncements on the Assessee's Belief:
The Tribunal considered various judicial pronouncements, including:
- The Orissa High Court decision in CIT v. K. Satyanarayan Murty, which supported the view that the property received on partition is individual property.
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Prem Chand's case, which was rendered after the reopening notices were issued by the department.
- The Supreme Court decision in Lakshmi Chand Khajuria v. Smt. Ishroo Devi, which held that in the Southern School of Mitakshara Law, the wife is not entitled to a share in the partition.
- The Gujarat High Court decision in CWT v. Senatkumar Jayantilal, which held that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the return when the assessee revised the original return based on judicial pronouncements.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had reasonable cause to believe that his correct status was that of an individual. The returns filed in the status of an individual were based on a bona fide belief, supported by judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revised returns and that the penalties should not be sustained. Hence, all penalties for the seven years in question were canceled, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 97
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appeal by the Revenue.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(A).
3. Procedural defects in the appeal memorandum.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Appeal by the Revenue:
The primary issue is whether the appeal by the Revenue is maintainable, given that the deceased, Late Jwalla Prasad Sikaria, was named as the respondent. The legal representatives, Shri Kashi Prasad Sikaria and Smt. Santi Devi Sikaria, were already involved in the penalty proceedings and had appealed to the AAC. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the appeal is not maintainable as it was filed against a deceased person, citing various precedents such as the Tripura High Court decision in AIR 1963 Tripura 44 and the Supreme Court decision in Ram Prasad & Ors. (1972) 86 ITR 145 (SC).
The Revenue's representative countered by asserting that the appeal was valid, as the legal representatives had been involved from the beginning, and any clerical error in naming the deceased as the respondent did not invalidate the proceedings. The Revenue relied on section 292B and the Supreme Court decision in Guduthur Bros. vs. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 298 (SC).
2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(A):
The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 24,104 for the delay in filing the return, which was deemed without reasonable cause. The AAC, however, found the penalty unjustified and canceled it. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the AAC erred in canceling the penalty. The legal representatives contended that the delay was due to late receipt of income and interest from various sources.
3. Procedural Defects in the Appeal Memorandum:
The Tribunal considered whether the procedural defect of naming the deceased as the respondent rendered the appeal a nullity. The Tribunal noted that the right of appeal is a substantive right and a creature of statute, as held by the Supreme Court in Mela Ram and Sons vs. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 607 (SC). The Tribunal also referred to the Delhi High Court decision in CIT vs. Roshan Lal & Anr. (1982) 134 ITR 145 (Del), which held that proceedings could continue against legal representatives if they were involved from the beginning.
The Tribunal concluded that the defect in the memorandum of appeal was a curable technical mistake. Citing various precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in Kapurchand Shrrimal vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 451 (SC), the Tribunal held that procedural defects should not defeat justice. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Registrar to notify the appellant to correct the defect within 30 days, failing which the appeal would be disposed of as it stood.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue was maintainable despite the procedural defect of naming a deceased person as the respondent. The defect was deemed curable, and the appellant was given 30 days to correct it. The preliminary objections raised by the assessee's counsel were thus disposed of, allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits.
-
1988 (9) TMI 96
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 17,65,790 on account of unexplained investment in building construction.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 5,000 out of electricity expenses.
3. Levy of interest u/s 139(8) and 215 of the Act.
Summary:
1. Addition of Rs. 17,65,790 on account of unexplained investment in building construction:
The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 17,65,790 made by the IAC(A) on account of unexplained investment in a building. The assessee declared a total investment of Rs. 17,44,960, supported by valuation reports from registered valuers Shri S.B. Gupta and Smt. Shama Mehra, estimating the cost at Rs. 17,21,754 and Rs. 16,30,000 respectively. The IAC(A) referred the matter to the valuation officer, Shri P.K. Kohli, who valued the building at Rs. 39,00,156 using the plinth area method. The IAC(A) reduced this to Rs. 35,10,751 after certain deductions and made an addition of Rs. 17,65,719. The CIT(A) upheld the IAC(A)'s determination but distributed the unexplained investment over four years, reducing the addition for the year under consideration to Rs. 3,45,000. The Tribunal found that the valuation reports by the registered valuers were more accurate and reliable compared to the valuation officer's report, which lacked necessary supporting material. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee maintained regular books of accounts, which were not found to be unreliable. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 17,65,790 was deleted.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 5,000 out of electricity expenses:
The assessee did not press this ground before the Tribunal, and it was accordingly rejected.
3. Levy of interest u/s 139(8) and 215 of the Act:
The levy of interest u/s 139(8) and 215 was considered consequential. The ITO was directed to determine the interest liability after modifying the income as ordered above.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the deletion of the addition of Rs. 17,65,790 and the rejection of the disallowance of Rs. 5,000 out of electricity expenses. The levy of interest was to be reconsidered based on the modified income.
-
1988 (9) TMI 95
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment proceedings.
2. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961.
3. Addition under Section 40A(8) of the IT Act.
4. Claim under Section 80J of the IT Act.
5. Charge of interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the IT Act.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Assessment Proceedings:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, arguing that the notices under Sections 139(2)/148 of the Act were never served, rendering the entire assessment proceedings invalid. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's accounting year ended on 31st March 1984, and a return declaring a loss was filed on 15th January 1986. Despite the late filing, the Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co Ltd., which held that the ITO must determine the loss even if the return is delayed. The Tribunal found no force in the argument that the assessment was invalid due to the late return. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that no valid action under Section 147 was initiated as no reasons were recorded for such action, and the assessment was based on the return filed on 15th January 1986. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the challenge to the legality of the proceedings.
2. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961:
The main issue was the disallowance of Rs. 9,56,751 for purchases made in cash, violating Section 40A(3). The ITO noted that payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 were made in cash, which should have been made by crossed cheques or drafts. The assessee contended that the payments were genuine and covered by Rule 6DD of the IT Rules. The Tribunal observed that the genuineness of the payments was not in dispute and referenced the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Kanti Lal Purushottam & Co. vs. CIT, which held that Section 40A(3) is discretionary. The Tribunal found that the payments to M/s Sethia Oil Industries and Balaji Vegetable Products were made under exceptional circumstances, as evidenced by certificates from the sellers. Similarly, payments to M/s Ganesh Flour Mills, a Government of India undertaking, were also considered genuine and not disallowed. For M/s Modi Vanaspati Mfg. Co., the Tribunal noted that payments were made in cash due to impracticality and were covered by Rule 6DD(j)(ii). Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 9,56,751 was deleted.
3. Addition under Section 40A(8) of the IT Act:
The assessee did not press the issue of an addition of Rs. 2,849 under Section 40A(8), and the Tribunal accordingly rejected this contention.
4. Claim under Section 80J of the IT Act:
The claim under Section 80J became redundant and infructuous due to the allowance of the expenditure on purchases, resulting in no income for the assessee.
5. Charge of Interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the IT Act:
Similarly, the issue of charging interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 became redundant due to the allowance of the expenditure on purchases.
Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the addition of Rs. 9,57,751 made by the ITO was deleted. The levy of interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 was also cancelled.
-
1988 (9) TMI 94
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initiation of penalty proceedings.
2. Vagueness in the imposition of penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
3. Basis for penalty calculation-whether it should be income-based or tax-based.
4. Merits of the penalty imposition based on the revised return and alleged concealment.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the initiation of penalty proceedings:
The assessee argued that the penalty proceedings were not validly initiated, rendering the penalty order void ab initio. The original assessment order was passed on 26-9-1978, with a penalty notice issued concurrently. A fresh assessment order on 27-3-1982 followed the CIT (Appeals) setting aside the original order for re-examination of a disputed addition. The assessee contended that the penalty notice issued on 27-3-1982 rendered the original notice inoperative. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that the original penalty proceedings were validly initiated and continued until the penalty order was passed. The fresh notice on 27-3-1982 was redundant and did not nullify the original proceedings.
2. Vagueness in the imposition of penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars:
The assessee claimed that the penalty order was vague as it imposed penalties for both concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing the case of CIT v. Manu Engg. Works, the assessee argued that the ITO must clearly specify the offense. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that certain fact situations could be described as both concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the ITO's order was not vague, as it pertained to the same item throughout the proceedings.
3. Basis for penalty calculation-whether it should be income-based or tax-based:
The assessee argued that the penalty should be tax-based, as the final assessment order was passed in 1982, and the law at that time should apply. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Brij Mohan v. CIT, which supports income-based penalties. The Tribunal found no indication that the Supreme Court's decision in Maya Rani Punj overruled Brij Mohan. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the income-based penalty calculation.
4. Merits of the penalty imposition based on the revised return and alleged concealment:
The Tribunal scrutinized the discrepancies between the original and revised returns. The original return showed a closing stock of Rs. 2,20,150, while the revised return reduced it to Rs. 46,750, with corresponding changes in purchases and sundry creditors. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for these discrepancies and did not maintain a stock register. The Tribunal concluded that the revised figures were not based on any inventory but were adjusted to align with reduced purchase figures. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim that part of the stock was covered by voluntary disclosures made by the firm and its partners. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not discharge its onus to prove that the discrepancies did not arise from fraud or gross neglect. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,24,050 for concealment of income.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the imposition of the penalty, rejecting all grounds raised by the assessee. The penalty was upheld based on the sustained addition of Rs. 1,24,050, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 93
Issues:
Appeal by Revenue against deletion of disallowance of gratuity and compensation.
Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 54,141 paid as gratuity and compensation to employees during the assessment year 1983-84. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the expenditure as he found it not approved, stating that gratuity is typically paid upon an employee's death or termination, neither of which occurred in this case. However, the assessee argued before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) that the payment was made due to business expediency, as the employees were concerned about the firm's future after the death of a senior partner and pressed for immediate payment. The AAC allowed the amount as an expenditure, emphasizing the genuine business need and the absence of doubts raised by the ITO regarding the expenditure's genuineness.
During the hearing, the Departmental Representative reiterated the ITO's arguments, citing a Supreme Court judgment regarding the provision of gratuity under the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal noted that the case involved actual payment of sums to employees, not a provision for future liability. The Tribunal examined the circumstances leading to the payment, including the employees' concerns, resignation threats, and the business decision to maintain goodwill and continuity. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes, as demonstrated by the need to inspire confidence in employees and avoid potential disruptions.
The Tribunal referenced various legal precedents to support its decision, highlighting that a business expenditure need not be based on a legal obligation but should serve the business's interests. The Tribunal concluded that the payment of gratuity and compensation in this case was reasonable, connected to the business, and essential for maintaining business operations and goodwill. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to allow the expenditure, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the business expediency and necessity of the gratuity and compensation payment, emphasizing that the expenditure was genuine, reasonable, and crucial for maintaining business continuity and employee confidence. The Tribunal's analysis considered the business context, employee concerns, and the absence of doubts regarding the expenditure's legitimacy, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
-
1988 (9) TMI 92
Issues involved:
1. Erroneous and prejudicial assessment to the Revenue.
2. Lack of proper scrutiny and investigation by the ITO.
3. Failure to inquire into the volume and sources of investment.
4. Acceptance of genuineness of loans and liabilities without inquiry.
5. Under-assessment of truck income.
6. Non-examination of sources of investment in fixed deposits and acquisition of jewelry.
7. Jurisdiction of the ITO.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment to the Revenue:
The CIT considered the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, leading to the issuance of a notice under section 263. The CIT highlighted that the ITO completed the assessment without proper scrutiny and investigation, which resulted in an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue's interest.
2. Lack of Proper Scrutiny and Investigation by the ITO:
The CIT issued a notice on 24th February 1987, stating that the ITO completed the assessment without proper scrutiny and investigation of the facts. The ITO failed to inquire into the volume of investment and sources thereof, and accepted the genuineness of loans and liabilities without any inquiry.
3. Failure to Inquire into the Volume and Sources of Investment:
The CIT noted that the ITO did not inquire into the volume of investment and sources for the immovable property and accepted the genuineness of loans and liabilities without any inquiry. The CIT's notice mentioned that the ITO failed to examine the source of acquisition of the jewelry and the sources of investment in fixed deposits.
4. Acceptance of Genuineness of Loans and Liabilities without Inquiry:
The CIT's notice indicated that the ITO accepted the genuineness of loans and liabilities without any inquiry. The assessee contended that the sources of investment in the property were properly explained, and an affidavit of Sardar Inderjit Singh from whom a sum of Rs. 3,70,000 was claimed to have been borrowed was filed, giving full particulars of the person and his assessing authority.
5. Under-assessment of Truck Income:
The CIT mentioned that the ITO added Rs. 2,500 for non-maintenance of books of accounts, which was capricious and vague. The CIT opined that a proper assessment of the truck income would be at least Rs. 2,000 per month. The assessee argued that the assertion that the truck income was under-assessed was arbitrary.
6. Non-Examination of Sources of Investment in Fixed Deposits and Acquisition of Jewelry:
The CIT noted that the ITO did not inquire into the sources of investment in fixed deposits and the acquisition of jewelry. The assessee contended that these were fully explained in wealth tax assessments for the assessment year 1984-85. The CIT's order mentioned that the ITO failed to examine the source of acquisition of the jewelry and the sources of investment in fixed deposits.
7. Jurisdiction of the ITO:
The CIT held that the ITO, Private Salary Circle IV, should have processed the case and passed the order. This point was not addressed to the assessee in either of the two notices issued to her. The CIT did not clarify in his order how the ITO, Private Salary Circle IV, and not the Private Salary Circle VII, could assess the assessee. The assessee argued that the Commissioner did not apprise her of this point in any of the notices, and thus no opportunity of hearing was given.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the CIT's action in cancelling the assessment under section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the CIT failed to establish that the assessment made by the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT did not provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee on several points mentioned in the ultimate order. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order under section 263 was vitiated for want of an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and for lack of proper examination of records. Consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the CIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
-
1988 (9) TMI 91
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the authorities were justified in refusing to bring forward and set off the loss of Rs. 3,05,190 pertaining to the assessment year (asst. yr.) 1983-84 against the income for asst. yr. 1984-85.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Filing of Return and Determination of Loss:
The assessee, a private limited company, filed its return for asst. yr. 1983-84 on 17th June 1983, within the stipulated time under section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The return declared a loss of Rs. 3,05,190. Despite this timely filing, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) did not take any action to determine the loss within the prescribed period, making the assessment time-barred by 31st March 1986. However, the ITO accepted the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, investment allowance, and section 80J deficiency for asst. yr. 1983-84, but refused to carry forward the loss of Rs. 3,05,190, citing that the loss had not been determined.
2. Appeal to CIT(A):
The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the ITO's decision. The CIT(A) acknowledged that while it seemed inequitable not to allow the loss due to the ITO's failure to determine it, the law did not provide for such a situation. The CIT(A) also chose not to follow the decision of the Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Tribunal in M.M. Paul vs. ITO, which had allowed the carry forward of loss under similar circumstances.
3. Relevant Provisions of the IT Act:
- Section 139(3) allows a person who has suffered losses to file a return of loss within the time allowed under section 139(1).
- Section 143 outlines the process for assessment, including the possibility of acceptance without requiring the presence of the assessee (section 143(1)) or after obtaining clarifications (section 143(3)).
- Section 157 mandates that if the resultant figure is a loss, the ITO must notify the assessee in writing.
- Section 80 prohibits the carry forward of losses unless the return is filed within the time allowed and the loss is determined by the ITO.
4. Legal Presumption and ITO's Duty:
The combined effect of these provisions suggests that if a return is filed within the prescribed time, the ITO must determine the loss and communicate it to the assessee. If the ITO fails to complete the assessment within the time limit, the loss cannot be carried forward unless it is determined and notified.
5. Analysis of Present Case:
In this case, the return was filed within the time limit, and the ITO accepted the claims for unabsorbed depreciation, investment allowance, and section 80J deficiency for asst. yr. 1983-84. This acceptance implies that the ITO had accepted the return under section 143(1). Therefore, it is logical to infer that the ITO should have also accepted the loss of Rs. 3,05,190 and carried it forward to asst. yr. 1984-85.
6. Case Law and General Propositions:
The case law cited by both parties did not directly apply to the present facts. The judgment clarifies that the inference drawn from the facts of this case does not establish a general rule that a loss return filed within the prescribed time must always be carried forward if the ITO fails to act. Each case must be evaluated based on its specific facts.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the ITO's action of carrying forward three out of four items constituting the total minus income indicates that the return was not ignored. Therefore, the loss of Rs. 3,05,190 should also have been carried forward. The assessee's appeal was accepted, and the ITO was directed to carry forward the loss as per the return for asst. yr. 1983-84.
-
1988 (9) TMI 90
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,66,776 as income under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Ownership and use of the car provided by the non-resident firm.
3. Assessment of benefit derived from the use of the car.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of the Addition of Rs. 6,66,776 as Income under Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue in this case was whether the sum of Rs. 6,66,776, representing the landed cost of a Mercedes Benz car supplied to the assessee by a non-resident firm, should be included as income under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The IAC (Asst.) had initially included this amount as income, reasoning that the car was provided to the assessee free of cost for personal use and ownership. However, the CIT (Appeals) deleted this addition, concluding that the car was not provided for personal use or ownership but for official purposes, and the car was eventually re-exported to the original supplier due to manufacturing defects.
2. Ownership and Use of the Car Provided by the Non-Resident Firm:
The facts revealed that the car was supplied to the assessee by R & E Collections, West Germany, as part of his employment terms. The car was registered in the assessee's name as per the import licence conditions, but it was intended for official use. The IAC (Asst.) had argued that the car belonged to the assessee because it was registered in his name, and he had executed a bond and pledged an FDR as security. However, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that these actions were in compliance with the import licence conditions and did not establish ownership. The car was ultimately re-exported to the original supplier without any compensation, indicating that it belonged to the non-resident firm.
3. Assessment of Benefit Derived from the Use of the Car:
The Tribunal examined whether the assessee derived any benefit from the use of the car, which would be assessable under section 28(iv). The assessee claimed that the car had manufacturing defects and was not used for personal or official purposes. This assertion was not rebutted by the IAC. The Tribunal concluded that since the car was not used and was eventually returned due to defects, no benefit was derived by the assessee. Consequently, there was no perquisite in terms of section 28(iv), and the addition of Rs. 6,66,776 was unwarranted.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 6,66,776, concluding that the car was provided for official purposes, was not owned by the assessee, and no benefit was derived from its use due to manufacturing defects. The departmental appeal was rejected.
-
1988 (9) TMI 89
Issues:
Withdrawal of development rebate granted to a partnership firm due to transfer of assets after the death of a partner and non-utilization of development rebate reserve.
Analysis:
1. The appeals by the revenue were against the orders passed by the ITO withdrawing development rebate granted to a partnership firm for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, which were cancelled by the CIT(A), resulting in the revenue's appeal to the tribunal.
2. The partnership firm, after the death of one partner, admitted the surviving partner's wife as a new partner without registration. The ITO treated it as a registered firm and withdrew the development rebate, citing a transfer of assets due to the new partner's introduction.
3. The CIT(A) held that the dissolution of the firm by law upon the death of a partner did not constitute a transfer of assets, as required under section 34(3)(b) for withdrawal of development rebate. The tribunal considered the arguments of both parties regarding the transfer of assets.
4. The Departmental Representative relied on legal precedents to support the revenue's position on the transfer of assets and withdrawal of development rebate, but the tribunal found these cases not applicable to the current situation.
5. The tribunal analyzed the language of section 34(3)(b) and concluded that the transfer of assets must be by the assessee to trigger the provision. In this case, the dissolution of the firm did not result in a transfer of assets, as clarified by previous court judgments.
6. Referring to previous court decisions, including the Supreme Court, the tribunal emphasized that upon dissolution of a firm, there is no transfer of assets by the dissolved firm to any person, thus negating the application of section 34(3)(b) in this scenario.
7. The tribunal highlighted a Karnataka High Court judgment where the dissolution of a partnership firm did not lead to a transfer of assets, supporting the position that development rebate could not be withdrawn in such cases.
8. Ultimately, the tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that section 34(3)(b) could not be invoked due to the lack of a transfer of assets by the dissolved partnership firm.
9. The tribunal also addressed the ITO's assertion regarding non-utilization of the development rebate reserve, clarifying that the requirement to utilize the reserve for business purposes is spread over eight years and does not mandate post-8-year utilization.
10. Conclusively, the tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the revenue's arguments regarding the withdrawal of development rebate based on asset transfer and non-utilization of the reserve.
-
1988 (9) TMI 88
Issues:
Withdrawal of development rebate granted to a partnership firm due to introduction of a new partner after the death of an existing partner. Interpretation of Section 34(3)(b) regarding transfer of assets and utilization of development rebate reserve.
Analysis:
The case involved two appeals by the Revenue challenging the withdrawal of development rebate granted to a partnership firm for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The CIT(A) cancelled the orders passed by the ITO, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.
The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 34(3)(b) concerning the transfer of assets by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the introduction of a new partner resulted in a transfer of assets, justifying the withdrawal of the development rebate. However, the Tribunal analyzed the facts and determined that the dissolution of the firm due to the death of a partner did not constitute a transfer under the said provision. The Tribunal emphasized that the transfer must be by the same entity that availed the development rebate, which was not the case post the dissolution of the original firm.
Additionally, the Tribunal referenced legal precedents such as Chittor Motor Transport Co. and Meghdoot Electrical Corporation to support its interpretation. These cases highlighted that in scenarios where a firm is dissolved, there is no transfer of assets by the dissolved entity, thus precluding the application of Section 34(3)(b).
Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the ITO's assertion regarding the non-utilization of the development rebate reserve within eight years. It clarified that the requirement under Section 34(3)(a) was to utilize the reserve for business purposes during the specified period, not solely after its completion. The Tribunal found the ITO's action in withdrawing the rebate based on non-usage of the reserve misconceived, especially considering the firm's dissolution.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision that Section 34(3)(b) could not be invoked in the present case due to the absence of a valid transfer. The Tribunal also rejected the notion of withdrawing the rebate based on non-utilization of the reserve, highlighting the misconceptions in the ITO's approach.
This comprehensive analysis elucidates the Tribunal's thorough examination of the legal provisions, factual circumstances, and pertinent precedents to arrive at a well-reasoned judgment in favor of the assessee.
-
1988 (9) TMI 87
Issues:
1. Liability towards purchase tax provision
2. Exemption claim for foreign-made car under section 5(1)(viii)
3. Inclusion of industrial subsidy in net wealth
Analysis:
Issue 1: Liability towards purchase tax provision
The dispute revolves around the provision made for purchase tax liability by the assessee in the wealth-tax assessments for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The Wealth-tax Officer added the provision amount to the net wealth, contending that the exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act rendered the liability void. The assessee argued that the liability existed until the conditions for exemption were met, citing past Tribunal decisions supporting their claim. The Tribunal considered the impact of a sales tax assessment showing exemption granted, emphasizing that liability must be real and not contingent. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the provision made by the assessee was based on an apprehension and a contingent liability, thus disallowing the claim and restoring the additions made by the Wealth-tax Officer.
Issue 2: Exemption claim for foreign-made car
The second issue pertains to the inclusion of a foreign-made Toyota car in the balance sheet as a business asset and the assessee's claim for exemption under section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act. The assessee contended that the car was a personal asset, included in the balance sheet for presentation purposes only. However, the revenue argued that since the car was a business asset, depreciation was not claimed, making it taxable under the law. The Tribunal upheld the revenue's stance, emphasizing that treating the car as a business asset in the balance sheet precluded it from being considered a personal asset for exemption purposes.
Issue 3: Inclusion of industrial subsidy in net wealth
The final issue concerns the industrial subsidy received by the assessee, which was included in the net wealth by the authorities. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been addressed in a prior assessment year, where the claim was rejected. Following the precedent set in the earlier case, the Tribunal upheld the decision to include the industrial subsidy in the net wealth for the relevant years.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the assessee, allowed the appeals by the revenue, and rejected the cross-objections filed by the assessee, thereby concluding the wealth-tax assessments for the respective years.
-
1988 (9) TMI 86
Issues Involved:
1. Date of passing of the assessment order.
2. Denial of registration to the assessee firm.
3. Charging of interest under sections 139(8), 217(1)(a), and 217(1A) of the Act.
4. Allowance of depreciation on plant and machinery.
5. Issuance of penalty notices under sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), and 273(2)(c).
6. Consideration of revised return filed under the Amnesty Scheme, 1986.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Date of Passing of the Assessment Order:
The assessee contended that the assessment order dated 13th March 1986 was actually passed later, possibly on 27th March 1986, as evidenced by the dates on accompanying documents like the demand notice and penalty notices. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was indeed dated 13th/27th March 1986, and credit for prepaid taxes paid on 19th March 1986 was given in the assessment order. This indicated that the order was not passed on 13th March 1986 but after 19th March 1986, thus supporting the assessee's claim.
2. Denial of Registration to the Assessee Firm:
The assessee claimed that Form No. 11 for registration was filed on 31st March 1980, but the original receipt was lost. The Tribunal directed the ITO to verify this claim from the assessment records and reconsider the registration afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
3. Charging of Interest under Sections 139(8), 217(1)(a), and 217(1A) of the Act:
The Tribunal held that an appeal is maintainable against the levy of interest if the assessee denies liability to the levy at all. The assessee argued that interest under sections 217(1)(a) and 217(1A) could not be charged simultaneously for the same period. The Tribunal agreed, referencing a CBDT circular that stated interest under section 217(1A) should not be charged if interest under section 217(1)(a) is already charged. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee denied liability to interest under section 217(1A), making the appeal maintainable.
4. Allowance of Depreciation on Plant and Machinery:
The assessee claimed higher depreciation at 15% on machinery in contact with corrosive materials and additional depreciation on new machinery. The Tribunal found that these claims should be considered for substantial justice, particularly given the nature of the assessee's business involving corrosive materials. The Tribunal directed the ITO to adjudicate these claims afresh.
5. Issuance of Penalty Notices under Sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), and 273(2)(c):
The Tribunal noted that under the Amnesty Scheme, no penalty proceedings should be initiated, nor interest charged if the revised return was filed under the scheme. The Tribunal directed that the ITO should not initiate penalty proceedings or charge interest, as the assessee's revised return was filed under the Amnesty Scheme.
6. Consideration of Revised Return Filed under the Amnesty Scheme, 1986:
The Tribunal found that the revised return filed on 17th March 1986 was not considered by the ITO, resulting in the denial of benefits under the Amnesty Scheme. The Tribunal directed the ITO to make a fresh assessment considering the revised return, ensuring that the assessed income does not exceed the income declared in the revised return. The Tribunal also instructed that no penalties or interest should be levied, adhering to the Amnesty Scheme provisions.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order, and directed the ITO to reassess the case considering the revised return, admit additional grounds, and verify the registration claim. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with the Amnesty Scheme, ensuring no penalties or interest were charged.
-
1988 (9) TMI 85
The appeal was against a penalty of Rs. 13,756 under s. 15B of the WT Act for non-payment of wealth tax. The assessee had requested a refund of Rs. 19,034 from the ITO, which was not issued, leading to non-payment of wealth tax. The ITAT Bombay-E canceled the penalty, stating there was a reasonable cause for non-payment. The appeal was allowed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 84
Issues:
1. Disallowance for deduction of tax liability from outstanding remuneration.
2. Valuation of L.I.C. Annuity policies.
Issue 1: Disallowance for deduction of tax liability from outstanding remuneration:
The appeal concerns the disallowance for deduction of tax liability from the outstanding remuneration. The WTO included the entire outstanding amount of fees in the wealth of the assessee. The AAC upheld this decision based on the Supreme Court's ruling in a specific case. However, the assessee argued that the issue in their case differs from the precedent cited by the AAC. The Tribunal, in a previous case, directed the WTO to determine the market value of outstanding fees after obtaining details from the assessee. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the WTO to estimate the reasonable value of outstanding fees for the assessee.
Issue 2: Valuation of L.I.C. Annuity policies:
The second issue revolves around the valuation of L.I.C. Annuity policies. The assessee claimed that the annuity policies are exempt under a specific section of the Act and relied on a Supreme Court decision. However, the WTO did not allow the claim and valued the annuities at a higher amount. The AAC also rejected the assessee's claim and upheld the WTO's valuation. The Tribunal, considering a previous case, emphasized the need to verify the nature and terms of the annuity policies to determine their valuation. The Tribunal criticized the lack of discussion by the WTO on the valuation methodology and deductions made. It highlighted the necessity for proper valuation and directed the WTO to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer if rejecting the assessee's valuation. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and instructed the WTO to redecide the valuation issue in accordance with law.
In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with directions given to reassess both the disallowance for tax liability deduction from outstanding remuneration and the valuation of L.I.C. Annuity policies based on the Tribunal's guidance in previous cases.
-
1988 (9) TMI 83
Issues:
Inclusion of trust amount in net wealth under Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
Detailed Analysis:
The appeal in question pertains to the assessment year 1985-86, where the assessee settled Rs. 50,000 on a trust for the benefit of his minor granddaughter as per a Deed of Trust dated 26th Oct., 1980. The trust fund was to be utilized for the marriage expenses and customary gifts for the granddaughter. The issue arose when the WTO included this amount in the net wealth of the assessee, a decision upheld by CWT (A) leading to the current appeal before the tribunal.
The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Section 4(1)(a)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, which includes assets transferred by an individual to an association of persons after June 1, 1973, for the benefit of specified individuals. The key question here is whether the transfer was made for the immediate or deferred benefit of the assessee's minor granddaughter. If the transfer was deemed for her benefit, the amount would be includible under the Act.
The tribunal analyzed the nature of the benefit conferred by the trust deed on the minor granddaughter. It was observed that the benefit was not immediate as she was to receive it upon marriage or upon reaching the age of 25, which would be after attaining majority. The tribunal delved into the interpretation of "deferred benefit," concluding that the benefit must be deferred within the minority of the child to be considered a benefit to the minor under the Act.
In support of its interpretation, the tribunal cited a decision of the Bombay High Court and subsequent judgments by other high courts which upheld a similar understanding of "immediate or deferred benefit" concerning minor beneficiaries. The tribunal held that the trust amount settled by the assessee did not attract the provisions of Section 4(1)(a)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and thus, directed the exclusion of the amount from the net wealth of the assessee.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of the timing of benefit accrual to minor beneficiaries in determining the applicability of wealth tax provisions.
-
1988 (9) TMI 82
Issues Involved:
1. Whether annuity policies constitute taxable wealth of the assessee and the valuation thereof.
2. Whether royalty in the hands of the assessee is a taxable asset/wealth and the valuation thereof.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Annuity Policies as Taxable Wealth
Assessment Order:
The assessee received annuity policies in lieu of professional remuneration. These policies were taken out by cine producers to ensure a steady income for the assessee. The assessee claimed exemption from Wealth Tax (WT) on the ground that her accounts are on a cash basis. However, based on the Supreme Court's decision in CWT vs. Vyasraju Badrimurtiraj, the claim was deemed untenable. The annuity policies were considered valuable assets and taxable as wealth. The policies were not covered by exemptions under sections 2(e)(2), 5(1)(via), or 5(1)(vii) of the WT Act. The valuation was determined by discounting the future income at 4% per year, resulting in a taxable value of Rs. 4,27,680.
First Appellate Authority:
The discounting rate of 4% was considered too low. A rate of 12% was deemed reasonable, aligning with the interest rate of National Savings Certificates. Using a discounting rate of 12%, the valuation was recalculated to Rs. 2,89,696, providing the assessee a relief of Rs. 1,37,984 for the assessment year 1982-83. The same method was directed to be applied for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.
Tribunal's Decision:
The assessee was identified as an 'Assignee' rather than a 'Purchaser' or 'Annuitant'. Based on the definition of 'Assignment of income' from Black's Law Dictionary, nothing is taxable in the hands of the assessee regarding annuity policies. The matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication, requiring the assessee to provide all policies issued by LIC and alleged to be annuity policies.
Issue 2: Royalty as Taxable Wealth
Assessment Order:
The assessee, a renowned singer, received royalty income from record sales. This right to receive royalty was considered a valuable asset. The average yearly royalty income over the past five years was calculated to be Rs. 5,03,861, rounded to Rs. 5,00,000. Capitalizing this income at 12% interest, the capital worth of the asset was determined to be Rs. 41,50,000 for WT assessment.
First Appellate Authority:
The average royalty income was recalculated over a 10-year period, resulting in an average of Rs. 4,44,000 per annum. Using a discounting rate of 12% and a multiple of 5.65, the value of the royalties was determined to be Rs. 24,86,000 for the assessment year 1982-83. The same method was directed to be applied for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.
Tribunal's Decision:
The tribunal noted that royalty income was becoming doubtful and decreasing. An example from the Law & Practice of Gift Tax & Wealth Tax was adopted, suggesting a multiple of 2.402 for capitalizing the royalty income. The orders of the lower authorities were modified accordingly, directing a revised valuation based on this multiple.
Conclusion:
The tribunal remanded the issue of annuity policies back to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee as an 'Assignee'. For the royalty income, the tribunal adopted a multiple of 2.402 for valuation, modifying the orders of the lower authorities. The revenue succeeded partially, and the assessee's appeals were deemed partly successful on merits and partly for statistics.
-
1988 (9) TMI 81
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability and valuation of annuity policies as taxable wealth.
2. Taxability and valuation of royalty income as a taxable asset/wealth.
Issue 1: Taxability and Valuation of Annuity Policies
The primary question was whether annuity policies constitute taxable wealth for the assessee and, if so, how they should be valued. The assessee received annuity policies instead of cash remuneration for singing in films. These policies were purchased by cine-producers from the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) to ensure a steady income for the assessee over a fixed period. The assessee claimed exemption from wealth tax on these policies, arguing that her accounts were on a cash basis. However, based on the Supreme Court's decision in CWT v. Vysyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju [1985] 152 ITR 454, the claim was deemed untenable as annuity policies constitute a valuable asset taxable as wealth.
The policies were not covered by exemptions under sections 2(e)(2), 5(1)(via), or 5(1)(vii) of the Wealth Tax Act, as they did not insure any risk on the life of the annuitant. The valuation of these policies was contested. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) initially adopted a discounting rate of 4% to determine the present value of future income from the annuities, arriving at a taxable value of Rs. 4,27,680. However, the first appellate authority found this rate too low and adopted a 12% discounting rate, reducing the taxable value to Rs. 2,89,696.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was neither the purchaser nor the annuitant but merely an assignee of the policies. According to Black's Law Dictionary, an "assignee" is someone to whom an assignment is made, and "assignment of income" refers to a procedure where a taxpayer attempts to avoid income recognition by assigning the property generating the income to another. If the assessee is an assignee, then the income from these policies should not be taxable in her hands. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the first appellate authority to decide afresh after examining all the policies and determining if the assessee is indeed an assignee.
Issue 2: Taxability and Valuation of Royalty Income
The second issue was whether the royalty income received by the assessee, a renowned singer, constituted taxable wealth and how it should be valued. The WTO considered the royalty income as a valuable right and taxable asset, calculating the average annual royalty income over five years and capitalizing it at a 12% interest rate to determine a taxable value of Rs. 41,50,000.
The first appellate authority suggested averaging the royalties over ten years and applying a discounting rate of 12%, arriving at a reduced taxable value of Rs. 24,86,000. The Tribunal referred to an example from the Law & Practice of Gift Tax & Wealth Tax by C.A. Gulanikar, which suggested using a multiple of 2.402 for capitalizing royalty income. The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to adopt this multiple and revise the valuation accordingly.
Conclusion
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, remanding the issue of annuity policies back to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration and directing a revised valuation of royalty income using a multiple of 2.402. The Revenue's appeal succeeded partially, while the assessee's appeals were deemed to have succeeded partly on merits and partly for statistical purposes.
-
1988 (9) TMI 80
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of claim for excise duty.
2. Disallowance of incremental liability for gratuity.
3. Disallowance of exchange difference on remittance of foreign currency loan.
4. Disallowance of expenditure on the transit house.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Claim for Excise Duty:
The primary issue was whether the assessee's claim for excise duty of Rs. 28,83,250 should be allowed as a deduction. The assessee argued that since it maintained accounts on a mercantile basis, the liability mentioned in the show-cause notices had accrued in the relevant accounting year. The ITO allowed the deduction for one item (Rs. 20,784.64) as the liability crystallized within the year due to an order by the Asst. Collector but disallowed the rest. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.
The Tribunal analyzed the legal position that excise duty liability for an assessee following the mercantile system of accounting is incurred as soon as excisable goods are manufactured or produced. However, for unadmitted liabilities, the enforceable liability arises only upon receipt of the Collector's demand for payment. The Tribunal concluded that mere show-cause notices do not constitute a demand notice, and thus, the liability had not crystallized in the relevant year. Therefore, the ITO's disallowance of the amounts mentioned in various show-cause notices was justified.
2. Disallowance of Incremental Liability for Gratuity:
The second issue was the disallowance of the incremental liability for gratuity of Rs. 17,02,000. The assessee contended that Section 40A(7) of the IT Act, 1961, did not apply to this case. However, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, which held against the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected this ground.
3. Disallowance of Exchange Difference on Remittance of Foreign Currency Loan:
The third issue was the disallowance of the exchange difference of Rs. 1,46,205 as a revenue business expenditure. The Tribunal found that this issue was already decided against the assessee in its own case for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, based on the decision of the Special Bench in Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. ITO. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the exchange difference as a revenue expenditure.
Regarding the sub-issue of investment allowance, the Tribunal noted that the Bombay Benches of the Tribunal had consistently taken a view against allowing investment allowance on exchange difference amounts paid several years after the installation of new machinery. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of Section 32A did not support the allowance of investment allowance in such circumstances, and no investment allowance reserve was created as required by law. Therefore, the Tribunal held that investment allowance could not be allowed on the amount representing exchange fluctuations.
4. Disallowance of Expenditure on the Transit House:
The final issue concerned the disallowance of Rs. 4,182 for the transit house, which the assessee argued was used by officers and employees for business purposes and should not be treated as a guest house. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions and held that the accommodation in question was rightly treated as a guest house under Section 37(5) of the IT Act. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance and rejected the ground.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the disallowances made by the ITO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on all grounds. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and prior judicial pronouncements.
-
1988 (9) TMI 79
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of secret commission.
2. Disallowance of surtax liability.
3. Reimbursement of medical expenses.
4. Disallowance of car expenses/depreciation.
5. Disallowance of club fees.
6. Treatment of Managing Director's commission as remuneration.
7. Disallowance of 1/3rd travelling expenses of the Managing Director.
8. Disallowance of interest for late filing of return and default in payment of advance tax.
9. Treatment of roads within factory premises for depreciation.
10. Depreciation on leasehold rights in land.
11. Disallowance of marriage presents and Diwali Mahurat expenses.
12. Disallowance of certain expenses under section 37(2A).
13. Inclusion of expenditure on gift articles and Diwali greeting cards under section 37(3A).
14. Disallowance of carpet cost as capital expenditure.
15. Disallowance under section 35B.
16. Taxation of proceeds from sale of import entitlements.
17. Disallowance of fees paid to Registrar of Companies.
18. Disallowance of payment for delay in Family Pension Contribution.
19. Disallowance of bad debts.
20. Taxation of credit balances written back to Profit & Loss Account.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Secret Commission:
The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of secret commission payments charged to the Profit & Loss Account. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance due to lack of evidence that the payments were for services rendered. The Tribunal, however, noted that similar claims had been allowed in previous years and emphasized the industry practice of such payments. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning flawed, especially considering the destruction of relevant documents in a fire, and allowed the claim.
2. Disallowance of Surtax Liability:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of surtax liability as a deduction in computing the total income, in line with unanimous judicial opinion.
3. Reimbursement of Medical Expenses:
The Tribunal ruled that reimbursement of medical expenses in cash should be considered part of the salary, not a perquisite, and thus allowed the claim.
4. Disallowance of Car Expenses/Depreciation:
The Tribunal found the CIT(A) in error for disallowing the full expenses and depreciation on cars. It held that only 1/3rd of the expenses should be considered under sections 40A(5)/40(c), aligning with the Bombay High Court's ruling that employer-incurred expenses, not perquisite value, should be considered.
5. Disallowance of Club Fees:
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of club fees under sections 40(c)/40A(5) as it was not raised before the CIT(A).
6. Treatment of Managing Director's Commission as Remuneration:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the Managing Director's commission as remuneration under section 40(C), citing a Special Bench decision.
7. Disallowance of 1/3rd Travelling Expenses of the Managing Director:
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s disallowance of 1/3rd of the Managing Director's travelling expenses, recognizing the expenses as normal business expenditure under section 37(1) due to their connection with a proposed collaboration agreement.
8. Disallowance of Interest for Late Filing of Return and Default in Payment of Advance Tax:
The Tribunal rejected the ground, affirming that such payments cannot be allowed as business expenses or interest on borrowed capital.
9. Treatment of Roads Within Factory Premises for Depreciation:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat roads within factory premises as buildings, not plant, for depreciation purposes, referencing a Bombay High Court decision.
10. Depreciation on Leasehold Rights in Land:
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that expenditure on leasehold rights in land should be treated as part of the land cost, which is not a depreciable asset.
11. Disallowance of Marriage Presents and Diwali Mahurat Expenses:
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s disallowance unjustified, ruling that the expenses were for business purposes and should be allowed.
12. Disallowance of Certain Expenses Under Section 37(2A):
The Tribunal directed the ITO to exclude 25% of the disallowed expenses, recognizing them as incurred on employees accompanying customers, following the amendment to section 37(2A).
13. Inclusion of Expenditure on Gift Articles and Diwali Greeting Cards Under Section 37(3A):
The Tribunal could not interfere with the CIT(A)'s order due to the lack of details about the expenses, which were destroyed in a fire.
14. Disallowance of Carpet Cost as Capital Expenditure:
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, viewing the expenditure on carpets as routine with no enduring benefit, thus not capital in nature.
15. Disallowance Under Section 35B:
The Tribunal rejected the ground as it was not pressed by the assessee's counsel.
16. Taxation of Proceeds from Sale of Import Entitlements:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the proceeds from the sale of import entitlements, supported by a Bombay High Court decision.
17. Disallowance of Fees Paid to Registrar of Companies:
The Tribunal allowed the ground, reversing the CIT(A)'s disallowance in light of a Bombay High Court decision.
18. Disallowance of Payment for Delay in Family Pension Contribution:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance, referencing a Gujarat High Court decision.
19. Disallowance of Bad Debts:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s denial of the bad debt claim due to insufficient evidence that the debts became irrecoverable during the year under consideration.
20. Taxation of Credit Balances Written Back to Profit & Loss Account:
The Tribunal deleted the inclusion of credit balances in the total income, finding no evidence of liability cessation or remission by creditors.
Conclusion:
The appeals for assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 were allowed, while those for 1978-79 to 1980-81 were allowed in part.
....
|
9911796707
