Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1993 1993 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 141 to 160 of 272 Records

• 1993 (7) TMI 132
  
  The judgment involves the following Issues:
  
  1. Addition of notional interest on advances given to sister concern.
  2. Disallowance of service charges paid for effecting sales and procurement of raw materials.
  3. Disallowance of part of expenses.
  4. Forcing deduction of depreciation not claimed by the assessee.
  5. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-HHC before allowing deduction u/s 32AB.
  6. Allowability of deduction u/s 80HH and 80-I before setting off brought forward depreciation.
  7. Decision on 50% reduction in job work charges paid towards repairs of plant & machinery.
  8. Verification of claim of Rs. 27,04,031.
  9. Addition to book profit for alleged excess provision for depreciation.
  10. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-HHC.
  11. Levy of interest u/s 234-B and 234-C.
  12. Levy of additional tax on notional income assessed u/s 115-J.

  Ground No. (i):

  The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 89,170, being the amount of notional interest on advances given to sister concern. The Tribunal found that the advances were made for business purposes and the assessee had sufficient interest-free credits. Thus, the addition of Rs. 89,170 was deleted.

  Ground No. (ii):

  The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 6,75,000, being service charges paid to M/s Souvenirs Chemicals Private Limited. The Tribunal found that the payment was reasonable given the increase in business and the services rendered. The disallowance of Rs. 6,75,000 was deleted.

  Ground No. (iii):

  The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 15,000 out of expenses. The Tribunal noted the practical difficulty in obtaining vouchers for all expenses and found the lump sum disallowance without exact amounts unjustified. The disallowance of Rs. 15,000 was deleted.

  Ground No. (iv):

  The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in forcing upon the assessee the deduction of depreciation not claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be forced upon the assessee if not claimed. The Assessing Officer was directed to withdraw the depreciation allowed.

  Ground No. (v):

  The CIT(A) erred in not holding that the deduction u/s 80-HHC was allowable before allowing deduction u/s 32AB. The Tribunal upheld the view that deduction u/s 32AB falls within the computation of profits for s. 80-HHC. This ground was dismissed.

  Ground No. (vi):

  The CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction u/s 80HH and 80-I was not allowable before setting off brought forward depreciation. The Tribunal directed that unabsorbed depreciation should not be deducted from the profits for computing deductions u/s 80-HH and 80-I.

  Ground No. (vii):

  The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue relating to 50% reduction in job work charges paid towards repairs of plant & machinery. The Tribunal found no basis for treating the payment as unreasonable and deleted the addition of Rs. 79,247.

  Ground No. (viii):

  The CIT(A) erred in directing to verify the claim of Rs. 27,04,031 to allow/disallow the same. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to change the method of depreciation and claim arrears of past years. The Assessing Officer was directed not to interfere with the balance sheet regarding this claim.

  Ground No. (ix):

  The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,32,315 to the book profit, being alleged excess provision for depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's correction of the Profit & Loss Account as the provision was not in accordance with the Companies Act.

  Ground No. (x):

  The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the claim regarding allowability of deduction u/s 80-HHC. The Tribunal directed that the profits for deduction u/s 80HHC should be computed according to the provisions of ss. 28 to 44 of the IT Act.

  Ground No. (xi):

  The CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234-B and 234-C. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's stand that income u/s 115J is notional and should not be the basis for interest levy. However, interest should be charged excluding cash compensatory support.

  Ground No. (xii):

  The CIT(A) erred in not holding that the additional tax on notional income assessed u/s 115-J was improper. The Tribunal held that no additional tax can be levied on book profit u/s 115J and deleted the additional tax levied.

  In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 131
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Addition on account of power subsidy.
  2. Disallowance under section 43B.
  3. Disallowance of Mineral Rights Tax and excess provision for Mineral Rights Tax.
  4. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment.
  5. Provision for shortfall in levy cement share.
  6. Disallowance of replacement of diesel engine.
  7. Investment allowance on certain assets.
  8. Expenditure on maintenance of guest house.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Addition on Account of Power Subsidy:
  The assessee received power subsidies from APSEB for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1986-87, which were claimed as capital receipts and transferred to the Capital Reserve Account. The ITO treated these subsidies as revenue receipts, relying on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. The CIT(Appeals) disagreed, distinguishing the facts and treating the subsidies as capital receipts based on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Dusad Industries. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)' decision, emphasizing that the subsidies were part of a package of incentives for industrial growth and hence capital in nature.
  
  2. Disallowance under Section 43B:
  For assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, the ITO disallowed unpaid sales tax amounts under section 43B. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Srikakollu Subba Rao & Co. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if the payments were made within the stipulated time and directed that no disallowance should be made if payments were timely.
  
  3. Disallowance of Mineral Rights Tax and Excess Provision for Mineral Rights Tax:
  The ITO disallowed the provision for mineral rights tax, treating it as a tax under section 43B. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the provision, stating it was a cess and section 43B did not apply. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)' decision, noting the nature of the payment as a cess and referencing the Andhra Pradesh High Court's ruling that the tax imposition was unconstitutional.
  
  4. Disallowance of Provision for Leave Encashment:
  The ITO disallowed the provision for leave encashment, considering it contingent. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the provision, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, directing the ITO to determine the quantum based on actuarial valuation, recognizing the liability as ascertained and enforceable.
  
  5. Provision for Shortfall in Levy Cement Share:
  The ITO disallowed the provision for excess realization due to unfulfilled levy quota. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the provision, referencing relevant case laws. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)' decision, recognizing the provision as a quantified liability under the Cement Control Order.
  
  6. Disallowance of Replacement of Diesel Engine:
  The ITO disallowed the cost of a new diesel engine, treating it as a capital expenditure. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing judicial precedents that considered such replacements as revenue expenditures.
  
  7. Investment Allowance on Certain Assets:
  The ITO disallowed investment allowance on air-conditioners, plant roads, and telephone exchange, treating them as office equipment or building. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the claims. The Tribunal upheld the allowance for the telephone exchange and directed verification for air-conditioners' installation location but reversed the allowance for plant roads based on the Supreme Court's decision in Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd.
  
  8. Expenditure on Maintenance of Guest House:
  The ITO disallowed the guest house expenses under section 37(5). The CIT(Appeals) allowed 50% of the expenses, considering them related to employees' accommodation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)' decision, recognizing the expenses as partly allowable.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal's decisions largely upheld the CIT(Appeals)' rulings, emphasizing the nature of subsidies, the applicability of section 43B, the characterization of expenses, and the need for detailed verification in certain cases. The appeals were partly allowed, with specific directions for further verification and adjustments.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 130
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Valuation of construction of a house.
  2. Reopening of assessments under Section 147(a).
  3. Validity of the Departmental Valuer's report.
  4. Addition of income from undisclosed sources.
  5. Rejection of account books and vouchers.
  6. Adoption of cost indices.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Valuation of Construction of a House
  The central issue in this case was the valuation of a double-storeyed residential building constructed by the assessee, a doctor, during the period from July 1984 to September 1986. The assessee claimed the cost of construction to be Rs. 2,78,000, while the registered valuer estimated it at Rs. 2,30,000 after deducting 10% for self-supervision. However, the Departmental Valuer estimated the cost at Rs. 3,55,077 after conceding 7.5% for self-supervision. The Assessing Officer adopted the Departmental Valuer's report, leading to a proposed addition of Rs. 77,000 as income from 'undisclosed sources.'
  
  2. Reopening of Assessments Under Section 147(a)
  The Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 148 to reopen the assessments for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87, alleging that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal held that the material facts necessary for the assessment were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee, including the cost of construction. The Tribunal found no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, making the reopening under Section 147(a) invalid.
  
  3. Validity of the Departmental Valuer's Report
  The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Valuer's report could not be the sole basis for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the Income-tax Officer must first reject the account books maintained by the assessee before relying on the Departmental Valuer's report. Since the Assessing Officer did not reject the account books or the 100% vouchers provided by the assessee, the reference to the Departmental Valuer was deemed invalid.
  
  4. Addition of Income from Undisclosed Sources
  The Assessing Officer added Rs. 77,000 as income from 'undisclosed sources' based on the difference between the Departmental Valuer's estimate and the cost admitted by the assessee. The Tribunal held that without rejecting the account books and vouchers, the addition based on the Departmental Valuer's report could not be sustained. The Tribunal cited several decisions supporting the view that proper books of accounts and vouchers negate the need for relying on a valuation report for additions.
  
  5. Rejection of Account Books and Vouchers
  The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer did not find any defects in the account books or the 100% vouchers maintained by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, stating that without pointing out defects in the account books, the Assessing Officer could not rely on the Departmental Valuer's report. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer must record a finding about the falsity or unreliability of the evidence before considering a valuation report.
  
  6. Adoption of Cost Indices
  The Tribunal criticized the Departmental Valuer for adopting the Delhi cost index instead of the cost index of Kurnool as per the CBDT's instructions. The Tribunal noted that using the Delhi cost index led to an inflated estimate of the construction cost. The Tribunal held that if the cost index of Kurnool had been used, the estimated cost would have been substantially lower and more in line with the assessee's declared cost.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeals, holding that the reopening of assessments was invalid and the additions based on the Departmental Valuer's report were not justified. The Tribunal found that the cost of construction declared by the assessee was supported by proper account books and 100% vouchers, and there was no basis for rejecting these records. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were found to be infructuous and were also dismissed.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 129
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of assessment under section 144 instead of section 143(3).
  2. Validity of the return filed on 30th March 1985.
  3. Non-compliance with notices issued by the Assessing Officer.
  4. Disallowance of Rs. 6600 under section 40A(3).
  5. Disallowance of Rs. 6305 as bad debts.
  6. Levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 215/217.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of Assessment under Section 144:
  The appellant firm contended that the assessment should have been made under section 143(3) instead of section 144. The Tribunal noted that the tax liability would not be affected by whether the assessment was under section 144 or 143(3). However, the Tribunal decided to address the issue due to its potential implications for penalty and other proceedings.
  
  2. Validity of the Return Filed on 30th March 1985:
  The return filed on 30th March 1985 was initially treated as invalid by the Assessing Officer for two reasons: it was not accompanied by trading account, profit and loss account, balance sheet, etc., and it was filed after the completion of assessment under section 144. The Tribunal found that the return was defective but not invalid, as the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure under section 139(9) to notify the defects and allow rectification. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the return, though filed after the assessment, became valid upon the cancellation of the section 144 assessment on 15th November 1985.
  
  3. Non-compliance with Notices:
  The Tribunal considered the appellant's claim that there was no non-compliance with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal accepted this claim based on written submissions and found that the assessment should be deemed to have been made under section 143(3).
  
  4. Disallowance of Rs. 6600 under Section 40A(3):
  The disallowance was made for payments to M/s. Avon Sales Company. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide an opportunity for the appellant to be heard before making the disallowance. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, citing the CBDT Circular No. 220, which allows for cash payments if the payee insists and provides necessary tax details.
  
  5. Disallowance of Rs. 6305 as Bad Debts:
  The Tribunal considered the small amounts involved and the appellant's prudence in not pursuing legal recovery. The Tribunal found that the conditions for writing off bad debts were satisfied and deleted the addition.
  
  6. Levy of Interest under Sections 139(8) and 215/217:
  The appellant objected to the levy of interest without being given an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority only allowed consequential relief without addressing the specific ground raised by the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the relevant part of the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, holding that the return filed on 30th March 1985 was valid as of 15th November 1985, the disallowances under sections 40A(3) and for bad debts were deleted, and the issue of interest levy was remanded for fresh consideration.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 128
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of proceedings under Section 147.
  2. Assessment of income from house property let out to Air India, specifically the inclusion of the value of complimentary air tickets as part of the rental income.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 147:
  
  The assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 147, arguing that there was no valid reason for reopening the assessment. The Assessing Officer had received information that the assessee received complimentary air tickets from Air India as compensation for the low rental income of Rs. 4,000 per month. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the proceedings under Section 147, stating that the assessee had not made a full disclosure of facts at the time of filing the return. The Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment upon receiving information about the complimentary tickets provided by Air India to compensate for the low rent.
  
  2. Assessment of Income from House Property:
  
  The core issue was whether the value of complimentary air tickets provided by Air India should be included in the rental income for the purpose of determining the annual value of the property under Section 23 of the Income-tax Act.
  
  a. First Appellate Authority's Decision:
  
  The CIT (Appeals) upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment but reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The initial addition was Rs. 1,17,170, based on the first-class fare of five tickets. The CIT (Appeals) considered this excessive and sustained an addition of Rs. 35,152, taking the economy fare of three tickets instead.
  
  b. Tribunal's Analysis:
  
  The Tribunal examined the agreement between the assessee and Air India, which confirmed that the assessee was compensated for the low rental of Rs. 4,000 per month by receiving three round-trip tickets annually. The Tribunal agreed that the actual rent received in cash was not the fair rental value of the property, and the compensation by way of air tickets should be considered in determining the annual letting value.
  
  The Tribunal noted that under Section 23, the annual value of the property is deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year or the actual rent received, whichever is higher. The Tribunal concluded that the value of the complimentary tickets should be considered but discounted for the purposes of determining the annual letting value. The Tribunal directed that a sum of Rs. 24,000 be added to the actual rent received, making the gross annual letting value Rs. 48,000 + Rs. 24,000, with statutory deductions allowed for house-tax, repairs, ground rent, etc.
  
  c. Separate Judgment by A. Kalyanasundharam, AM:
  
  A. Kalyanasundharam, AM, disagreed with the view of discounting the value of the tickets. He argued that the entire value of the tickets, Rs. 35,152, should be treated as additional rent received in kind. He emphasized that Section 23 does not provide for perquisites and their valuation as in the case of salaried employees under Section 17. According to him, the rent received in kind should be fully added to the rent received in cash, making the gross rental of the property Rs. 83,152 (Rs. 48,000 + Rs. 35,152).
  
  d. Third Member's Decision:
  
  The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member's view that the value of the tickets should be discounted. He highlighted that the tickets were non-transferable and their utility was uncertain, making their full market value inappropriate for inclusion in the rent. The discounted value of the tickets was considered a more rational method for determining the annual letting value.
  
  The Third Member emphasized that Section 23(1) requires the annual value to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let or the actual rent received, whichever is higher. The tickets' non-transferability and contingent utility warranted a discounted value rather than the full market value.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing that the discounted value of the complimentary tickets be added to the actual rent received to determine the annual letting value of the property. The validity of the proceedings under Section 147 was upheld. The matter was referred back to the regular Bench for a decision according to the majority opinion.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 127
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Extent of deduction permissible under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act.
  2. Disallowance of bonus under section 43B of the Income-tax Act.
  3. Disallowance of foreign traveling expenses.
  4. Disallowance of farm house expenses, club expenses, repair expenses, staff welfare expenses, and expenses on samples.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Extent of Deduction Permissible under Section 80HHC:
  The primary issue revolves around the extent of deduction permissible under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, a limited company, claimed a deduction of Rs. 18,93,970 under this section, while the Assessing Officer (AO) restricted the deduction to Rs. 2,92,170. The AO included the turnover of other exporters (on which the assessee received a commission) in the total turnover, which the assessee contested. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] recalculated the profit derived from exports and allowed a deduction of Rs. 17,66,859. Both the assessee and the department appealed against this order.
  
  The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 80HHC and noted that the section aims to boost exports by providing relief from taxation on profits derived from export business. It was clarified that the term "total turnover" should include only the sale proceeds of goods or merchandise and not other incomes like commission. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's export activity was exclusively for exports, and since the export resulted in a loss, the assessee was not entitled to any deduction under section 80HHC. However, due to constraints, the Tribunal sustained the deduction allowed by the AO to the extent of Rs. 2,92,170.
  
  2. Disallowance of Bonus under Section 43B:
  The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 30,634 out of bonus, as proof of payment was not placed before the AO. The Tribunal remanded this issue to the AO to verify whether the payment was made before the due date for filing the return and, if so, to allow the deduction.
  
  3. Disallowance of Foreign Traveling Expenses:
  The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 6,16,351 out of foreign traveling expenses, arguing that the visits were for exploring export opportunities. The Tribunal noted that the Managing Director's visits were related to his role in the International Olympic Committee and remanded the issue to the AO to verify the purpose of the visits and the RBI permits for foreign exchange, allowing the assessee sufficient opportunity to present evidence.
  
  4. Disallowance of Farm House Expenses, Club Expenses, Repair Expenses, Staff Welfare Expenses, and Expenses on Samples:
  The assessee did not seriously press the claims regarding disallowance of farm house expenses, club expenses, repair expenses, staff welfare expenses, and expenses on samples. The Tribunal rejected these grounds of appeal, noting that the allowability of expenses is based on their incurrence for business purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that unless expenses are found to be incurred for business purposes, they cannot be allowed as deductions for computing income from profits and gains of business or profession.
  
  Conclusion:
  In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee in part and that of the revenue. The Tribunal sustained the deduction allowed by the AO to the extent of Rs. 2,92,170 under section 80HHC, remanded the issue of bonus disallowance to the AO for verification, and remanded the issue of foreign traveling expenses to the AO for further examination. The Tribunal rejected the grounds of appeal concerning disallowance of farm house expenses, club expenses, repair expenses, staff welfare expenses, and expenses on samples.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 126
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deduction of Rs. 11,28,417 paid towards the purchase of positive prints.
  2. Application of Rule 9B of the Income-tax Rules.
  3. Applicability of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Deduction of Rs. 11,28,417 Paid Towards the Purchase of Positive Prints:
  The primary issue in this appeal is whether the assessee, a private limited company engaged in the exhibition and distribution of motion pictures, is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 11,28,417 paid towards the purchase of positive prints. The assessee entered into agreements with two firms for acquiring distribution and exhibition rights of films and paid additional amounts for extra prints beyond those provided under the agreements. The total sum of Rs. 11,28,417 was claimed as a deduction in computing the income.
  
  2. Application of Rule 9B of the Income-tax Rules:
  The I.A.C. (Asst.) disallowed the deduction by applying Rule 9B, treating the amount as spent on the acquisition of capital assets. The C.I.T. (Appeals) upheld this disallowance, stating that Rule 9B explicitly prohibits the allowance of the cost of extra prints when the rights are acquired on a minimum guarantee basis. Rule 9B defines the "cost of acquisition" and excludes the expenditure on positive prints and advertisement when rights are acquired on a minimum guarantee basis.
  
  3. Applicability of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act:
  The assessee argued that even if Rule 9B disallows the cost of prints, the expenditure should be allowed under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act as it was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and was not of a capital nature. The Department contended that Rule 9B, having the force of law, should prevail over Section 37, which is a residuary section applicable only when no specific provision exists.
  
  Tribunal's Decision:
  The Tribunal analyzed Rule 9B and Section 37 extensively. Rule 9B provides for the deduction of the cost of acquisition of feature films and excludes the cost of positive prints and advertisement only when the rights are acquired on a minimum guarantee basis. Section 37 allows for the deduction of business expenditures not covered by Sections 30 to 36 and not being capital expenditures.
  
  The Tribunal concluded that Rule 9B is not a complete code in itself but rather defines the cost of acquisition. The expenditure on positive prints, although not included in the cost of acquisition under Rule 9B, should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37 if it is a revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure on extra prints is necessary for maximizing collections, especially in the initial days of a film's release, and thus qualifies as a business expenditure.
  
  The Tribunal cited the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Prasad Productions (P.) Ltd., which supported the view that the cost of positive prints, though not included in the cost of acquisition, should be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 11,28,417 paid towards the purchase of positive prints, recognizing it as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the disallowances on other grounds that were not pressed during the hearing.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 125
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether there should be two separate assessments for two separate periods or one assessment for the whole period.
  2. Whether the firm was dissolved or there was a mere change in its constitution.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal revolved around whether two separate assessments should be made for distinct periods or a composite assessment for the entire period. The firm had filed separate returns for two periods following the death of a partner and the subsequent change in the partnership. The Assessing Officer had clubbed the income for both periods, leading to the appeal by the revenue.
  
  2. The key contention was whether the firm was dissolved or there was a mere change in its constitution due to the death of a partner and subsequent reconstitution of the partnership. The revenue argued that the surviving partners' conduct indicated the firm was not dissolved, relying on a High Court decision. However, the assessee contended that the firm automatically dissolved upon the partner's death as per the amended law and absence of a clause in the partnership deed for continuation after a partner's death.
  
  3. The Tribunal examined past judgments, including the jurisdictional High Court's decision and a Supreme Court ruling, to determine the legal implications of the firm's dissolution upon a partner's death. It was highlighted that the Supreme Court disapproved a Full Bench decision that aligned with the jurisdictional High Court's stance, implying a change in legal interpretation.
  
  4. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of a clause in the partnership deed for the firm's continuation after a partner's death led to automatic dissolution as per the amended law. Citing relevant case laws and the proviso to section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal affirmed that the firm's dissolution upon the partner's death necessitated separate assessments for distinct periods.
  
  5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to direct two separate assessments for the distinct periods, rejecting the revenue's appeal. The judgment clarified that the proviso to section 187(2) mandates dissolution of the firm upon a partner's death in the absence of a contrary contract, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 124
  
  Issues:
  1. Determination of the date of transfer of property for assessing capital gains.
  2. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 and the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  3. Consideration of legal precedents regarding the definition of 'transfer' in the context of property acquisition.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  Issue 1: The primary issue in this case was to determine the date of transfer of property for assessing capital gains. The appellant argued that the transfer occurred on the date of delivery of possession, i.e., 21-4-1971, as per the provisions of the Punjab Act. The appellant contended that the owner lost rights upon delivery of possession, not upon the payment of compensation. The respondent, however, argued that the quantification of compensation was the determining factor for transfer. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Punjab Act, emphasizing that possession vesting in the Improvement Trust marked the transfer of property, irrespective of compensation payment dates.
  
  Issue 2: The Tribunal delved into the provisions of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951, to ascertain the legal framework governing the transfer of property in question. Sections 6(2), 11, and 13 of the Act were crucial in establishing that possession delivery led to the absolute vesting of the land in the Improvement Trust. The Tribunal highlighted that the transfer was not contingent on compensation payment, as clarified by the Act's provisions. This analysis was pivotal in determining the date of transfer for tax assessment purposes.
  
  Issue 3: Legal precedents, including the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO and Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT, were cited by both parties to support their arguments on the definition of 'transfer' in property transactions. The Tribunal distinguished these cases based on the specific circumstances of compulsory acquisition under the Punjab Act. The Tribunal also referenced a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vittal Reddy v. CIT to emphasize the importance of context-specific assessments in determining tax liabilities arising from property acquisitions. These legal precedents aided in clarifying the concept of 'transfer' in the present case.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument regarding the date of transfer of property, ruling that it occurred on the date of possession delivery as per the Punjab Act. The Tribunal held that the compensation payment date was not determinative of the transfer date for assessing capital gains. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the tax liability imposed by the Revenue authorities on the capital gains amount. The decision on this issue rendered the consideration of the market value on a specific date unnecessary, leading to the success of the appeal solely on the grounds related to the transfer date determination.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 123
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the assessee should be assessed on the profit on receipt or accrual basis.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue related to the assessment year 1983-84 concerning the deletion of an addition of Rs. 14,73,210 made on account of profit on the sale of industrial sheds. The assessee, engaged in the development and sale of industrial sheds, received amounts for the sheds in instalments. The Assessing Officer calculated the total income at a 15% profit rate on the total sale value, while the assessee argued for income assessment on a receipt basis rather than an accrual basis. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's claim, stating that income should be assessed on a receipt basis and not on accrual basis.
  
  The core issue revolved around whether the assessee should be taxed on profit based on receipt or accrual basis. The Revenue contended that since the assessee maintained accounts on a mercantile system and the sheds were handed over to allottees after allotment, income should be assessed on an accrual basis. However, the assessee's counsel argued that it was a transfer of leasehold rights, not a sale, and the rights were not fully transferred until 15 years from allotment. The counsel highlighted that the assessee had the right to cancel the allotment and resume the sheds in case of default by the allottees, indicating incomplete transfer of rights. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the transfer of rights was not absolute, and the assessee had no legal right to recover the balance amount from the allottees.
  
  The Tribunal referenced legal precedents cited by both parties to support its decision. The Revenue's reliance on a Supreme Court case and a High Court decision was deemed irrelevant and distinguishable from the present case. The assessee's counsel referred to a Supreme Court decision and a High Court case, arguing that the income had not accrued as the assessee had no right to claim payment of instalments and could only cancel the allotment. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the income should be assessed on a receipt basis, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the assessment of income on a receipt basis rather than an accrual basis. The judgment emphasized the incomplete transfer of rights and the assessee's inability to recover the balance amount, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 122
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Liability of the assessee to tax under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Taxability of income from sources other than warehousing charges.
  3. Disallowance of certain expenditures by the Revenue authorities.
  4. Claim for depreciation.
  5. Levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Liability of the Assessee to Tax Under Section 10(29):
  
  The primary issue was whether the assessee, a Warehousing Corporation constituted under section 18(1) of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, was liable to tax under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed total exemption for its entire income, arguing that it met all conditions under section 10(29). The Assessing Officer allowed exemption only for income derived from warehousing charges amounting to Rs. 3,44,57,147 but disallowed Rs. 13,25,171 from other sources. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's view, emphasizing that section 10(29) only exempts income derived from letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. U.P. State Warehousing Corpn., which affirmed that only income from letting of godowns or warehouses qualifies for exemption under section 10(29).
  
  2. Taxability of Income from Other Sources:
  
  The assessee argued that all its activities were related to marketing and thus should be exempt under section 10(29). However, the Tribunal held that income from bank interest, hire charges of stitching machines and platform scales, GPF forfeiture, application fees, and other miscellaneous income did not qualify for exemption. The Tribunal cited decisions from various High Courts, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT and the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat State Warehousing Corpn., which supported the view that only income from letting of godowns or warehouses is exempt under section 10(29).
  
  3. Disallowance of Certain Expenditures:
  
  The assessee contended that no distinction should be drawn between expenditures related to taxable and non-taxable income. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd., which held that if business activities are inseparable, the entire expenditure should be allowed. The Tribunal also referenced the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. CIT, which supported the view that indivisible business expenses should be fully allowable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee.
  
  4. Claim for Depreciation:
  
  The assessee argued that the CIT (Appeals) failed to direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not raise this issue before the CIT (Appeals) or the Assessing Officer, and there was no evidence that a claim for depreciation was made and refused. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected this ground, stating that it did not arise from the CIT (Appeals)'s order.
  
  5. Levy of Interest under Sections 139(8) and 217:
  
  The assessee contended that interest under sections 139(8) and 217 should not be levied, as it claimed exemption for its entire income under section 10(29). The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Appeals) had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for passing a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected this ground, allowing the assessee to raise the plea before the Assessing Officer.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's decision to tax income from sources other than warehousing charges and disallowed the claim for depreciation. However, it allowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee, considering the inseparability of its business activities. The matter of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 was left to be decided by the Assessing Officer.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 121
  
  Issues:
  1. Allowance of capital loss arising from the sale of shares for set off against capital gains.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT CALCUTTA-E concerned the allowance of a capital loss of Rs. 36,43,221 arising from the sale of shares for set off against capital gains for the assessment year 1986-87. The assessee had sold a flat in Bombay resulting in a capital gain of Rs. 35,70,661 and subsequently sold equity shares of two companies. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the capital loss claim, invoking the doctrine in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), alleging the sale was a colorable device to avoid tax. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating there was no evidence of collusion between the assessee and the broker, and the transaction was genuine. The revenue appealed, arguing the CIT(A) should have upheld the ITO's view.
  
  The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to suggest the sale of shares was sham or a make-belief transaction. The CIT(A) found no collusion between the assessee and the broker. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction was genuine, and there was no basis to disallow the set off of capital loss against capital gains. It was noted that the shares were not high-value investments, and the timing of the sale did not automatically make it a tax avoidance scheme. Referring to legal precedents, including M.V. Valliappan v. ITO [1988] 170 ITR 238 and Union of India v. Playworld Electronics (P.) Ltd. [1990] 184 ITR 308, the Tribunal concluded that legitimate tax planning within the framework of the law was permissible. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order directing the ITO to allow the set off of the capital loss against capital gains.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the decision to allow the capital loss arising from the sale of shares to be set off against the capital gains.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 120
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Incorrect allowance of Rs. 7,16,300 as provision for stock.
  2. Incorrect allowance of Rs. 5,98,939 under the head 'Miscellaneous expenses'.
  3. Non-inclusion of Rs. 23,11,661 being bonus paid to the assessee's dealers for the purpose of disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Act.
  4. Wrong allowance of Rs. 1,55,80,867 being royalty paid by the assessee company.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Incorrect Allowance of Rs. 7,16,300 as Provision for Stock:
  The assessee did not contest this issue, and the appeal is limited to the other two issues. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) on this point is accepted as correct.
  
  2. Incorrect Allowance of Rs. 5,98,939 under the Head 'Miscellaneous Expenses':
  Similar to the first issue, the assessee did not dispute this matter. Thus, the CIT's order on this point is also accepted as correct.
  
  3. Non-inclusion of Rs. 23,11,661 Being Bonus Paid to the Assessee's Dealers for the Purpose of Disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Act:
  The CIT considered the bonus paid to dealers as "sales promotion expenses" and thus subject to disallowance under section 37(3A). The Tribunal, however, found this conclusion incorrect. The bonus schemes were based on the performance and actual sales made by the dealers, forming part of the selling expenses. The Tribunal referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT v. Hindusthan Motors Ltd., which held that commission and brokerage payments directly linked to actual sales are not to be disallowed under section 37(3A). Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the bonus payments were part of the selling expenses and not sales promotion expenses. The CIT's order on this issue was thus cancelled.
  
  4. Wrong Allowance of Rs. 1,55,80,867 Being Royalty Paid by the Assessee Company:
  The CIT treated the royalty payments as capital expenditure, but the Tribunal disagreed. The royalty payments were made to EMI Records Ltd., various artists, film producers, and authors of songs, and were linked to the sales of gramophone records and music cassettes. The agreements were typically for three to five years, with no outright purchase of rights, and the payments were recurring and based on sales. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. and Empire Jute Co. Ltd., concluding that the royalty payments were revenue expenditures. The Tribunal emphasized that the payments were for obtaining raw material (music) necessary for the assessee's business and were not for acquiring any capital asset. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT had rendered a clear finding on the merits of the issue, allowing the Tribunal to review and overturn the CIT's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the CIT's order on this point and restored the Income-tax Officer's original assessment.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal, cancelling the CIT's order regarding the bonus payments and royalty expenditures, and upheld the original assessment by the Income-tax Officer. The issues concerning the provision for stock and miscellaneous expenses were not contested by the assessee and were accepted as correct.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 119
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment involves the sustenance of an addition to the income of the assessee firm amounting to Rs. 6,25,000 u/s 131 based on a declaration made during a survey operation.
  
  Facts and Decision:
  The assessee firm, comprising three partners, underwent a survey on 11th Nov., 1987, during which one of the partners declared an additional income of Rs. 9,25,000 voluntarily. Subsequently, another survey on 2nd Dec., 1987 revealed discrepancies in cash handling. The Revenue authorities added the declared amount to the income, leading to a dispute. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing lack of evidence supporting the correctness of the declarations. However, the Tribunal found no concrete evidence to support the Revenue's position. The Tribunal noted the partner's non-matriculate status and the possibility of a mistake in his original statement. It emphasized the lack of incriminating documents and the absence of material to justify the addition. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's argument lacked substance and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, as the addition was solely based on the assessee's admission without supporting evidence.
  
  Legal Principles Applied:
  The Tribunal referred to precedents emphasizing that an admission is relevant but not conclusive in tax assessments. It highlighted the right of the assessee to correct errors in admissions made under duress or ignorance of legal rights. The Tribunal stressed that an admission must be supported by circumstances and can be challenged by the party making it. It underscored that the Revenue must adhere to legal norms and provide evidence to support additions based on admissions. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of material beyond the original admission, the addition was not justified.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition to the income. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and legal principles in tax assessments, emphasizing the need for the Revenue to substantiate additions based on admissions.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 118
  
  Issues:
  Applicability of s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for asst. yr. 1984-85.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Grounds of Appeal and Penalty Imposition:
  The appeals revolve around the correctness of maintaining the penalty for income concealment under s. 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that the penalty imposition was not in line with the law. The Revenue contested the reduction in penalty based on CIT(A)'s findings.
  
  2. Assessment Details:
  The assessee, a publishing company, filed its income return for the assessment year 1984-85. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty of Rs. 2,38,56,355. The CIT(A) reduced this penalty for specific items.
  
  3. Specific Item Disputes:
  Various items like loss on assignment of pronotes, depreciation in share value, and change in accounting policy were contested. The assessee argued for the genuineness of claims and cited legal precedents to support their position.
  
  4. Accounting Method Disputes:
  Disagreements arose over interest accounting, valuation of finished goods, insurance claim accounting, and provision for privilege leave encashment. The Tribunal made decisions based on the genuineness of claims and conflicting judicial opinions.
  
  5. Disallowance Under s. 40A(9):
  The disallowance under s. 40A(9) was challenged, with arguments on the nature of the expenditure and the absence of mens rea. The Tribunal found no misrepresentation or intentional wrongdoing by the assessee.
  
  6. Judicial Opinions and Penalties:
  The Tribunal analyzed various claims, judicial opinions, and the absence of mens rea to determine the applicability of penalties under s. 271(1)(c). The decision favored the assessee due to the genuine belief in claim validity and lack of deliberate concealment.
  
  7. Final Decision:
  After considering all arguments and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that penalties under s. 271(1)(c) could not be maintained in this case. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
  
  In summary, the judgment addressed multiple issues related to penalty imposition for income concealment under the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1984-85. The Tribunal examined specific items, accounting disputes, disallowances, and legal precedents to determine the applicability of penalties. Ultimately, the decision favored the assessee, citing genuine beliefs, absence of deliberate concealment, and conflicting judicial opinions as grounds for rejecting the penalties.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 117
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Valuation of closing stock and the method of accounting.
  2. Deduction under section 80M for dividend income and the estimation of related expenses.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Valuation of Closing Stock and the Method of Accounting:
  
  The primary dispute in the appeal concerns the valuation of closing stock, specifically an addition of Rs. 80,89,150 upheld by the CIT (Appeals). The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee, dealing exclusively in equity shares of Reliance Industries Ltd., used a valuation method at cost or market value, whichever was lower. However, the assessee's method did not conform to the FIFO (first in first out) or LIFO (last in first out) systems, which led the Assessing Officer to conclude that the method was a deliberate device to reduce profits. Consequently, the closing stock was revalued using the FIFO method, resulting in the addition of Rs. 80,89,150 as concealed income.
  
  The CIT (Appeals) observed that the assessee had changed its method of stock valuation from "at cost" in the previous year to "at cost or market value, whichever was lower" in the current year. The assessee argued that each share was identifiable by its distinctive number and followed the specific identification method, which is recognized by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. However, the CIT (Appeals) found the method defective, invoking the proviso to section 145(1) of the IT Act, citing the Supreme Court's decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, which held that colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning.
  
  The Tribunal examined whether the income could be properly deduced from the method of valuation of stocks adopted by the assessee. It was noted that the IT Act does not specify the method of stock valuation, allowing methods such as (i) at cost, (ii) at market value, or (iii) at cost or market value, whichever is lower. The dispute centered on whether the cost should be ascertained by the specific identification method or the FIFO method. The Tribunal found that the FIFO method adopted by the Assessing Officer brought anticipated profit into account, which was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT, where the purpose of stock valuation is to balance the cost of unsold goods and not to account for anticipated profits.
  
  The Tribunal concluded that where specific identification is possible and maintained, the specific identification method should be followed. Therefore, the income could be properly deduced from the method of accounting followed by the assessee, and the proviso to section 145(1) was not applicable. The addition of Rs. 80,89,150 was deleted, and the assessee's ground of appeal was allowed.
  
  2. Deduction Under Section 80M for Dividend Income and the Estimation of Related Expenses:
  
  The second issue pertains to the direction of the CIT (Appeals) estimating the expenditure for earning dividend income at Rs. 13,624 instead of Rs. 400 estimated by the assessee. The assessee claimed that dividend income fell under the head "Other sources," and consequently, a deduction under section 80M was claimed. The Assessing Officer, however, treated the dividend income as business income, denying the deduction under section 80M. The CIT (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention that the dividend income should be taxed under "Other sources" and allowed the deduction under section 80M but estimated the related expenditure at Rs. 13,624.
  
  The Tribunal noted that expenses directly relatable to earning the dividend income were not available separately, necessitating an estimate. Considering the total expenditure and the proportion of sales to dividend income, the Tribunal estimated that Rs. 5,000 could be related to earning the dividend income, as opposed to Rs. 13,624 adopted by the CIT (Appeals). This ground was partly allowed, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal reversing the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the valuation of closing stock and reducing the estimated expenditure related to earning dividend income.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 116
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deduction of mortgage charges from the sale consideration for computing capital gains.
  2. Determination of the fair market value of the property as on 1st Jan., 1964 for capital gains computation.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Deduction of Mortgage Charges from the Sale Consideration
  
  The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the deduction of Rs. 7,51,000 paid towards mortgage charges from the sale consideration for computing capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed this deduction, arguing that the payment to the mortgagee was an application of income after the receipt of sale proceeds and did not qualify as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer under Section 48 of the IT Act.
  
  The AO cited multiple cases to support his view, including:
  - Ambat Echukutty Menon vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 880 (Ker): Held that clearing a mortgage created by the previous owner does not constitute an improvement to the capital asset.
  - K.U. Idiculla vs. ITO (1985) 22 TTJ (Coch) 23: Supported the view that mortgage redemption is not deductible.
  - M.K. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 38 (SC): Reinforced that such payments are not covered under Section 48.
  
  The CIT(A), however, allowed the deduction by relying on cases like:
  - Smt. S. Valliammai & Anr. vs. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 713 (Mad): Held that costs to make the title complete and perfect can be treated as the cost of acquisition.
  - Sajjan Bagaria vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 430 (Gau): Supported similar views.
  - CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bom): Held that payments necessary to remove encumbrances for effecting the transfer are deductible.
  
  The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the binding nature of the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal, which interpreted Section 48(i) to include expenditures incurred to remove encumbrances as deductible. The Tribunal noted that judicial discipline requires following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, thus dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal on this issue.
  
  Issue 2: Determination of Fair Market Value as on 1st Jan., 1964
  
  The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s acceptance of the assessee's valuation of Rs. 9,38,000 as on 1st Jan., 1964, based on a valuation report dated 16th April, 1985. The AO had relied on the values declared in the Wealth-tax (WT) returns, which were Rs. 3,50,000 as on 31st March, 1963, and Rs. 3,75,000 as on 31st March, 1964.
  
  The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's valuation, arguing that the opinion of a registered valuer should not be disregarded without valid reasons. However, the Tribunal found this approach flawed, stating that the valuation report prepared 20 years later could not override contemporaneous documents like the WT returns and the purchase price of Rs. 3 lakhs.
  
  The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's claim, reversing the CIT(A)'s order on this issue. It emphasized that the fair market value as on 1st Jan., 1964, should be based on contemporaneous evidence, not on a much later valuation report.
  
  Conclusion
  
  The appeal by the Revenue was allowed in part:
  1. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction of mortgage charges from the sale consideration for computing capital gains.
  2. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the fair market value as on 1st Jan., 1964, and upheld the AO's reliance on contemporaneous WT returns and purchase price.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 115
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Whether the income derived by the Sadanand Family Benefit Trust from letting out premises and interest should be assessed as "income from business" or "income from other sources".
  2. Whether the trust should be treated as a discretionary trust or a specific trust.
  3. Application of Section 161(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
  4. Whether the assessment should be done on the trust or the beneficiaries.
  5. Validity of additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Income Classification:
  
  The primary issue was whether the income from letting out premises and interest should be classified as "income from business" or "income from other sources." The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially assessed the income under Section 143(1), treating it as business income and taxing it at the maximum marginal rate under Section 161(1A). The assessee contended that the income should be assessed under "income from other sources." The Tribunal found that the income from letting out premises and interest had been consistently assessed as "income from other sources" in previous years, and no new facts justified a departure from this classification. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the income should be assessed as "income from other sources."
  
  2. Nature of Trust:
  
  The ITO and CIT(A) treated the trust as a discretionary trust, arguing that the shares of the beneficiaries were not fixed and could change due to certain events, making the trust discretionary. The assessee contended that the trust was a specific trust with determinate shares for the beneficiaries. The Tribunal examined the trust deed and found that the beneficiaries and their shares were determinable on the last day of the accounting period. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the trust was a specific trust and not a discretionary trust.
  
  3. Application of Section 161(1A):
  
  Section 161(1A) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1984, effective from 1st April 1985, and provided that if the income of a trust includes profits and gains of business, it should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate. The assessee argued that since the trust had a share of loss from a partnership firm, Section 161(1A) should not apply. The Tribunal held that the words "profits and gains" in Section 161(1A) include business losses as well. Therefore, the application of Section 161(1A) was justified even in the case of a loss. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the trust should be assessed as a representative assessee in respect of the income of each beneficiary separately.
  
  4. Assessment on Trust or Beneficiaries:
  
  The assessee argued that the beneficiaries had already been assessed on their shares of the trust's income, and therefore, the trust should not be assessed again. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing the principle that once the beneficiaries are assessed, the trust should not be assessed on the same income. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. V.H. Sheth & Ors., which held that once the ITO assesses an assessee directly on their share of income from a trust, it is not open to assess the same income again in the hands of the trust.
  
  5. Additional Grounds of Appeal:
  
  The assessee raised additional grounds of appeal during the hearing, arguing that the ITO erred in assessing the trust as an Association of Persons (AOP) and that the beneficiaries had already been assessed on their shares of the trust's income. The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, citing the Full Bench decision in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that the Tribunal has wide powers to consider all matters relating to the subject matter of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the additional grounds were related to the subject matter of the appeal and admitted them for consideration.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal concluded that the income from letting out premises and interest should be assessed as "income from other sources," the trust should be treated as a specific trust, and the application of Section 161(1A) was justified even in the case of a loss. However, the trust should be assessed as a representative assessee in respect of the income of each beneficiary separately. The additional grounds of appeal were admitted, and the Tribunal held that once the beneficiaries are assessed, the trust should not be assessed on the same income. The appeals were partly allowed.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 114
  
  Issues:
  1. Disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure in a proportional manner.
  2. Whether development expenses should be allowed as revenue expenditure or capitalized.
  3. Claim of development expenses in a spread-out manner.
  4. Classification of the assessee as an industrial company for assessment year 1982-83.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The main issue in this judgment revolves around the disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure in a proportional manner for assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1984-85. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee as the expenses did not relate to the respective years. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowances, stating that development expenses were revenue in nature and should be claimed in the years they were incurred. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that revenue expenditure should be allowed in the year it pertains to, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Mysore Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978]. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowances for the Cooker Extruder but allowed the expenses for Communication Equipment proportionate to sales figures.
  
  2. The question of whether development expenses should be treated as revenue expenditure or capitalized was also addressed. The representative of the assessee argued that the expenses were essential for the business and should be allowed as revenue expenditure. The departmental representative acknowledged the nature of the expenses but argued against allowing them in a spread-out manner, emphasizing the lack of statutory provisions for such treatment. The Tribunal agreed with the department, stating that revenue expenses should be claimed in the year they are incurred, except for specific cases of amortization.
  
  3. The issue of claiming development expenses in a spread-out manner was raised by the assessee. The representative argued that expenses for the Cooker Extruder were spread over ten years, with previous claims being allowed. However, the Tribunal found that there was no link between the expenses and profit-earning for the years under consideration, leading to the confirmation of disallowances for the Cooker Extruder. For Communication Equipment, the Tribunal allowed expenses proportionate to sales figures, following accounting principles.
  
  4. Lastly, the classification of the assessee as an industrial company for assessment year 1982-83 was disputed. The CIT(A) found that the main income was from clearing and forwarding charges, leading to the classification as a non-industrial company. The Tribunal agreed with this finding, rejecting the appeal on this ground.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for assessment year 1982-83 and partially allowed the appeals for assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 by deleting the disallowances related to Communication Equipment.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 113
  
  Issues:
  - Deletion of interests levied under sections 139(8) and 217/215 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
  - Whether assessments should be considered as "regular assessments" or re-assessments under section 250 for the purpose of levy of interests under sections 139(8) and 217/215.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The judgment dealt with the departmental appeals regarding the deletion of interests levied under sections 139(8) and 217/215 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for four years. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the interests based on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in a specific case. The departmental representative argued that the assessments were not re-assessments under section 147 but were regular assessments replacing the original assessments set aside by the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner. The representative of the assessee contended that assessments for certain years should be considered re-assessments under section 250. The legal issue revolved around whether these assessments should be categorized as regular assessments or re-assessments for the purpose of levying interests under the mentioned sections.
  
  2. The tribunal analyzed the concept of "regular assessment" under section 2(40) and distinguished between assessments made under section 147 (re-assessments) and regular assessments under sections 143(3) or 144. It was held that assessments under section 147, even if made for the first time, cannot be considered regular assessments as they involve cases of income escapement. However, assessments made by the Assessing Officer after the original assessments were set aside and redone should be treated as regular assessments, maintaining the characteristics of the original assessments. The tribunal emphasized that re-assessments replacing original assessments should be considered regular assessments, contrary to assessments under section 147.
  
  3. The judgment referred to decisions by the Rajasthan High Court and the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court to support the distinction between regular assessments and re-assessments. The Rajasthan High Court highlighted that fresh assessments under section 263 are limited in scope and do not fall under regular assessments. In contrast, the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that re-assessments following the setting aside of original assessments by the appellate authority should be deemed regular assessments. The tribunal favored the Gujarat High Court's interpretation, stating that re-assessments in the case at hand, similar to those in the Gujarat case, should be treated as regular assessments, leading to the restoration of interests levied in the fresh assessment orders.
  
  4. Ultimately, the tribunal set aside the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) orders that deleted the interests and directed the restoration of interests under sections 139(8) and 217/215 for the relevant assessment years. It was concluded that the deletion of interests based on the Karnataka High Court decision was unwarranted, and the assessments should be treated as regular assessments, except for the assessment year 1984-85 where interests were correctly levied during the original assessment. The departmental appeals for all four years were allowed, reinstating the levies of interests under the specified sections.

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 14