|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 220 Records
-
1995 (10) TMI 80 - ITAT JAIPUR
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... lly inclined to think that since it was not able to produce the labourers, it would be difficult to convince the Assessing Officer about the genuineness of the payments and hence thought it wise to agree to an addition of Rs. 1 lakh without conceding it to be its undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer, on his part, being satisfied with this concession, did not go further to establish any concealment and framed the assessment order on the very same day. Thus, in our opinion, the assessee duly discharged its burden of rebutting the presumption raised against it, but the Assessing Officer failed to do so when the burden shifted on him. Under the totality of the circumstances, therefore, we do not consider this to be a good case to attract penalty provisions. 16. Keeping in view the principles as discussed earlier and the facts and circumstances of the case, we cancel the penalty of Rs. 70,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 79 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Assessing Officer, Cash System, Hybrid System, Income From Business, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... nt basis only under section 43B and, that, therefore, it cannot be said that cash basis in respect of certain transactions cannot at all fit into mercantile system. The analogy that was drawn on the basis of the provisions contained in section 43B of the Income-tax Act, has no relevance to the issue on hand. The main issue is whether the profits can properly be deduced from the system of accounting followed by the assessee. Even assuming for a moment that hybrid system of accounting followed by the assessee, is perfectly valid, still it can be rejected if it is not possible to deduce true profits from the said method. As we have already pointed out, the Assessing Officer in his assessment order had demonstrated with facts and figures as to how it is not possible to deduce correct profits from the method of accounting followed by the assessee. Hence, the said method of accounting was rightly rejected. 22. to 25. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues
-
1995 (10) TMI 78 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Additional Tax, Assessing Officer, Set Off, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... wable in the final assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3). Therefore, even if the additional tax was leviable with reference to these two amounts, it has to be reduced to nil by virtue of the provisions of section 143 (1A)(b). It is true that an addition of Rs. 2,35,400 was made by the Assessing Officer out of the provision for electricity charges, but this amount has nothing to do with the amount of adjustment of Rs. 3,44,048 made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a). This is altogether a different item. In other words, this is not an addition made in processing the return of income under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143. It is an independent and separate addition made in the assessment under section 143(3). 11. The additional tax levied on the assessee, in our opinion, was, therefore, rightly deleted by the CIT (Appeals). We, accordingly, uphold his order, though on different grounds. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 77 - ITAT DELHI-E
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Audit Objection, Original Assessment, Reassessment
-
1995 (10) TMI 76 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... the pre-amended s. 2(m) of the WT Act, 1957, we, respectfully following the same, hold that assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of sum of Rs. 10 lakhs incurred by the assessee in respect of an asset which no longer belongs to the assessee. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 8. The last ground of appeal is relating to disallowance of deduction on account of tax liability to the extent of Rs. 10,836. The AO has allowed deduction of Rs. 2,15,000 on account of tax liability for asst. yr. 1984-85. According to the learned counsel after appeal effects the final tax demand for asst. yr. 1984-85 is Rs. 2,25,836 and accordingly the same was allowable as a deduction. 9. In our view, the claim of the assessee is acceptable subject to verification. Let the AO verify as to what is the actual income-tax liability of the assessee as finally assessed for asst. yr. 1984-85 and allow a deduction to the assessee accordingly. 10. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 75 - ITAT DELHI-D
Assessment Year, Profits And Gains, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee and not on income of any particular unit or source. (4) Clause (3)(b) refers to total profits of business or profession of the assessee. It does not refer to profit of any unit or undertaking. (5) The statutory provision further requires deduction to be allowed before adjustment of brought forward losses under section 72 of the Income-tax Act. The said section can be applied only to losses of business of assessee and not to losses from a particular undertaking. (6) Proviso prohibiting double deduction in case of a firm, association of persons, body of individuals also suggest that total income of the assessee is to be taken into account. 11. Thus on consideration of Language, text and context as also scheme of Income-tax Act, we hold that deduction under section 32AB is to be allowed out of total income of the assessee. Therefore, we cancel the order passed by learned CIT and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 12. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 74 - ITAT DELHI-C
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Charitable And Religious Purposes, Charitable Purpose, Expenditure Incurred, Religious Trust
-
1995 (10) TMI 73 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... J.P. Bahl was the owner of the plot and the assessee had only constructed the flat on behalf of Mr. J.P. Bahl. The plot and the flat were transferred by Mr. Bahl and the consideration was received by him. No documentary evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to establish that the assessee-company had purchased this plot and it was the owner of the building constructed thereon. The only basis for treating the assessee as the owner of the plot and the building was the statement of Mr. J.P. Bahl which he himself has retracted during the course of the cross examination by the assessee s counsel before the AO himself. In view of the totality of these facts we find no material to hold that the assessee was the owner of the plot and the flat at D-200, Saket, and, therefore, it cannot be taxed for the surplus arising out of the sale of said plot and flat. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 4,00,000 made by the AO. 6. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 72 - ITAT DELHI-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, High Court, Inaccurate Particulars, Quoted Equity Shares, Supreme Court, Valuation Officer, Wealth Tax Return, Writ Petition
-
1995 (10) TMI 71 - ITAT DELHI-A
Account Books, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Deduction In Respect, Excise Duty, High Court, Mercantile System, Per Annum, Technical Know-how, Trading Liability, Trading Receipt
-
1995 (10) TMI 70 - ITAT DELHI-A
Assessment Year, Income From Contract ... ... ... ... ..... any legal basis or not, the Learned CIT (A) had adopted it as part of his order, Further he had put certain versions which the IAC (A) in his assessment order did not state. The following is the version --- The IAC has not made the addition with reference to the examination of the actual facts but on the basis of assumption and suspicion he has not stated that the contract was not complete by March 1983 but the purpose of his argument is that it would be deemed to be so. Thus the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is lacunic without proper appreciation of evidence on record and without appreciating the question of law involved, and, by short circuiting everything which needs elaborate discussion and ultimate decision dependent thereon. We hold that the order of the Ld CIT (A) is liable to be set aside and the assessment order of the IAC (A) is to be restored. The appeal of the revenue on this point is allowed. 20. to 23. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1995 (10) TMI 69 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Deemed Gift, Fair Market Value, Method Of Valuation Of Shares, S. 10, Taxable Gift
-
1995 (10) TMI 68 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... e to the assessee has been omitted to be claimed, it should be allowed to the assessee. In the present case, the claim for relief under section 80HH surfaced only when the Assessing Officer passed the consequential order on 24-11-1988. The assessee thereupon filed an application under section 154 and also an appeal against the said order. Under the circumstances, this is all what the assessee could do. Since the precise factual material and clear data for getting the necessary relief under section 80HH was available on record, the Assessing Officer could not throw away the assessee s application for rectification. In our opinion, the revenue authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. We accordingly hold that the assessee s application under section 154 did lie in the present case. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to consider the assessee s claim under section 80HH as per the provisions of law. 14. In the result, the appeals are allowed
-
1995 (10) TMI 67 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Assessing Officer, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... cent judgment. Even otherwise from the observations of the Supreme Court extracted above, it is our duty to infer a power on the part of the ITO to call upon the assessee to rectify the defect in the signature in the return. 14. Accordingly, we hold that the return filed by the assessee in the present case on 10-9-1985 was not an invalid return but was only a defective return and such defect was a curable defect. The return has not been disposed of. There can be no dispute after the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas 1959 36 ITR 569 and in CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar 1965 55 ITR 630 that no notice under section 148 for re-opening the assessment can be validly issued during the pendency of the original return. Therefore the notice issued by the ITO on 9-11-1987 under section 148 or the Act is without jurisdiction. If the notice is without jurisdiction the assessment made on 23-1-1989 is also invalid. We hold accordingly, and allow the assessee s appeal
-
1995 (10) TMI 66 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Earning Income, Income From Other Sources, Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... s which had not yielded any dividend was admissible as a deduction under section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing its income from dividend under the head Income from other sources . Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we come to the conclusion that the interest on loans were the expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income and, therefore, is an admissible deduction under section 57(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. As in our opinion the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Moody is applicable to this case, we respectfully follow the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and hold that the interest of Rs. 1,16,910 claimed by the assessee is an admissible deduction under section 57(iii). Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are quashed and the AO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of law. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1995 (10) TMI 65 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessee's Appeal, Assessing Officer, High Denomination Notes, S. 10, Unexplained Money ... ... ... ... ..... e in respect of the high-denomination notes which were tendered by the assessee to the RBI on 24-1-1978. It cannot be said that the assessee was the owner of any valuable article at that time. It is also not the version of the assessee that it was the owner of those high-denomination notes even prior to 16-1-1978 when those notes were actually valuable. Nor has the department found out any evidence on its part about the assessee being the owner of such amount of money on 16-1-1978. On the basis of the facts of the present case, we are clearly of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 1,35,000 as unexplained money found with the assessee by applying the provisions of section 69A itself is unsupportable. The question of levving penalty for concealment on the said amount, therefore, cannot arise. Taking into consideration all these facts, therefore, we reverse the decisions of the lower authorities and cancel the penalty. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee succeeds
-
1995 (10) TMI 64 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessing Officer, Business Premises, Deemed Income ... ... ... ... ..... efore us, have been deleted by us fully, the issue raised in this regard becomes of academic value only. We have already expressed our view that the entire unexplained stock found during the survey operation is liable to be assessed to tax in assessment year 1994-95. We have learnt from the representatives of both the sides that the assessment proceeding for that year is still lying pending before the Assessing Officer. We do not find any reason why this issue cannot be taken up by the assessee during the course of the said assessment proceeding. The assessee may very well take up the issue before the Assessing Officer who should decide as to whether the point taken up by the assessee has got some merits or not and in that way should arrive at the correct amount and value of the unexplained stock. So far as the present appeals before us are concerned, we do not at all consider it necessary to tackle this issue. 15. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 63 - ITAT BANGALORE
Advance Tax, Assessing Officer, Failure To File, False Estimate, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... rification and deliberations also. That is reflected by the fact that the assessees did not declare extra income even in the original returns of income but in the revised returns only. Taking into consideration all these facts, we feel that it cannot be said that even at the time of filing the last estimate of advance tax, i.e., on 15-12-1986 also, the assessees were in full knowledge of the fact that they had in their possession considerable amounts of cash required to be treated as deemed income. Hence, the assessees cannot be defaulted for not filing upward revised estimates of current income and of advance tax payable by them during the relevant financial year. Therefore, finally we agree with the CIT(A) that on consideration of the facts of the case, the assessees cannot be considered to be liable to levy of penalty under section 273(2)(c). Hence, we approve of the action of the CIT(A) in cancelling the penalties. 9. In the result, the departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 62 - ITAT AMRITSAR
High Court, Interest On Arrears ... ... ... ... ..... these provisions, that the award of such interest is not obligatory, but only discretionary and the Court may, or may not, award such interest. Similar view was taken by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Rashyan Udyog AIR 1990 Cal. 146. Therefore, only because of higher rate of interest being granted to the assessee than the rate of interest pendente lite, it will not change the character of interest. 15. Therefore, taking into consideration the legal position discussed above and the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that interest granted to the assessee was paid by the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in its discretion in order to compensate the assessee for having been deprived of the property, therefore, we are of the opinion that it is not taxable. We, therefore, set aside the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the same. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
-
1995 (10) TMI 61 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... ssessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue is correct. Relating to this proposition we may derive support from the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of J.P. Srivastava and Sons, Kanpur Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All). So when we set together all the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available in the appeal record we find no merit in the impugned order of the CIT. In fact, he has misconstrued the two circulars of the CBDT viz. Circular No. 14/9/65-IT(AI) dt. 22nd Sept., 1965 and Instruction No. 1546 dt. 6th Jan., 1984. The AO has rightly allowed ad hoc deduction towards expenditure 40 on the first year s commission and 15 on renewal commission respectively on Rs. 1,64,294 and on Rs. 1,47,165 aggregating to Rs. 87,793. The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We reverse the impugned order and restore the order of the AO. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
....
|
