|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 284 Records
-
1991 (8) TMI 145 - ITAT GAUHATI
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Delay In Filing Form No. 12, Partnership Deed, Previous Year, Registration Of Firm
-
1991 (8) TMI 144 - ITAT DELHI-E
Backward Area, Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... f theJammuoffice in the books of the head office and find that excess payments have been made by the branch office to the head office and not the other way around. Even during the course of the year there is no date on which the branch office has received excess payments from the head office. In the light of these facts the apportionment of interest to theJammubranch office is uncalled for. We hold accordingly. 17. The result is that the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80HH on the entire amount of profits ofJammubranch shown at Rs. 29,97,398. As regards the Yamuna Nagar branch the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80HH on Rs. 15,04,964 as per the following details --- Income computed Rs. 19,53,079 Less Interest as worked out by the learned CIT. Rs. 4,37,372 ------------- Rs. 15,15,707 Less Depreciation as worked out by the learned CIT. Rs. 10,743 ------------- Rs. 15,04,964 ------------- 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
-
1991 (8) TMI 143 - ITAT DELHI-E
Capital Gains, Inherited Property, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... upreme Court in the cases of K.P. Varghese and Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. has held that unless there is evidence that more than what stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. The only ground in assessing the capital gains at a higher figure in the present cases is the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer which has been found to be fair and reasonable by the first appellate authority. There is no evidence that over and above the consideration as shown by the aforesaid company anything was paid to the co-owners, simply because there was a wide variation between fair market value of the property in question as per the Dcpartmental Valuation Officer and the amounts for which credit has been given by the aforesaid company, provisions of section 52(2), in our opinion, cannot be invoked. We hold accordingly. This submission of the learned Counsel for the assessees also succeeds. 12. In the result, the appeals are allowed
-
1991 (8) TMI 142 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 3 lacs which sum, the slip states, was given to the assessee. Hakumat Rai has not made any statement to that effect. He dissociates himself from the slip. Similarly the assessee does not admit having taken or given any money to Hakumat Rai. As already stated no presumption under s. 132(4A) could be raised in respect of this document against Ashwani Kumar and, therefore, as regards the present assessee there is no evidence to show that, (i) any sum of Rs. 3 lacs was paid to the assessee by Hakumat Rai or anybody else (ii) that the sum of Rs. 3 lacs represented income and (iii) the sum of Rs. 3 lacs represented income for the accounting period ending 30th Sept., 1984 of the assessee. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 3 lacs mentioned in the aforesaid slip could not be treated as the assessee s income and this addition, therefore, too was unjustified. We accordingly delete the same. 30. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 141 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... was Rs. 163.80, while in the store ledger the same was mentioned as Rs. 102.60 p. and that the assessee could not reconcile the same. The learned CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance. Before the learned CIT(A) it was explained that the entry dt. 5th May in the consumable store a/c represented three items of expenditure totalling Rs. 163.80p and the three items of Rs. 102.60, Rs. 27 and Rs. 34.20 P had been on 2nd May, 1982, 1st April, 1982 and 30th April, 1982 respectively were entered in the store ledger as and when the expenditure was incurred and, therefore, there was no contradiction. The Assessing Officer has mentioned that the narration in the two books of accounts also differs. Copies of relevant accounts have not been placed before us and we, therefore, do not find any justification for interfering with the orders of the authorities below. The disallowance is, therefore, upheld. 17. No other point arises in the assessee s appeal. The same is accordingly partly allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 140 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... e contrary orders as well of the same High Court. In CIT vs. Smt. Usha Agarwal Family Trust (1989) 176 ITR 392 (All), the Hon ble Allahabad High Court has called for a reference. Then in IT Appeal No.225 of 1989 CIT vs. R.S. Goyal Family Trust arising out of R.A.No. 1337/88 of this Tribunal also the Hon ble High Court called for a reference. 18. For the reasons discussed above, we uphold the finding of the authorities below that the assessee was not a genuine trust and it carried on no business whatsoever. We hold that it was a colourable device simply to return the income earned by Ramesh Chand Agarwal from his business under the name of Britannia Engg.Co., and Precision Engg. Industries through this purported trust and avoid the incidence of tax by getting the income divided between five persons, namely, he himself in respect of the purported rent and the four beneficiaries named above. We, therefore, do not find any force in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 139 - ITAT DELHI-D
Accounting Year ... ... ... ... ..... the issue of payment of interest relates to a contractual liability and that, it had not accrued in the year, for the assessee had disputed the same in the light of the Supreme Court s ruling in Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. s case, the liability would be allowed only when the assessee s dispute comes to an end, by it accepting the demand and paying for the same, which in the instant case has been so complied with onApril 29, 1989. Therefore, the claim of interest on the additional premium as provided in the accounts, whereas by not paying the additional premium as per the modified terms by L and DO, cannot be said to have arisen or accrued in the accounting year relevant to the assessment years under appeal, hence has been rightly not allowed to be deducted from out of the business income. This disposes of the common issue raised in all the three years appeals against the assessment orders. 7 to 8. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1991 (8) TMI 138 - ITAT DELHI-C
Export Business, Foreign Company, Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... conceal income. We agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that even if the assessee had not claimed deduction under section 80HHC in respect of the export agency commission, it would have made no difference to the income returned or the income assessed because under section 80VVA the deduction had to be restricted to 70 per cent on pre-incentive total income. In such a situation there could be no motive for claiming such a deduction. We, therefore, hold that the assessee was under a genuine belief that it was entitled to relief under section 80HHC and that nothing more need be read into the assessee s claim which was made overtly and openly. Penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied simply because the assessee s claim was rejected finally. We hold that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in levying the penalty that he did. We accordingly delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1991 (8) TMI 137 - ITAT DELHI-C
Amnesty Scheme, Delay In Filing, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... see s appeal, it is stated that the assessee had received the lottery prize money in the normal course and that the provisions of section 56(2) read with section 80TT are applicable in computing the income addition to the extent of Rs. 9,71,940 has already been upheld above and it has been further held that the addition is to be made under section 69. Since the amount of Rs. 9,71,940 has been added as income from undisclosed source, the question of giving relief to the assessee under section 80TT does not arise. 23. In ground No. 7 the assessee claims credit of tax of Rs. 1,07,088 deducted bySikkimStateout of lottery payment and in the alternative he claimed deduction for that amount. In view of the finding, already recorded above, the assessee is not entitled to the credit of tax of Rs. 1,07,088 or deduction in respect of the said amount. 24. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly, to the extent indicated above
-
1991 (8) TMI 136 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... proper scrutiny of their accounts and in the absence of an opportunity being given to the assessee to cross-examine those parties, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the assessee in penalty proceedings. The levy of penalty on the impugned amount is thus vacated. 58. Shri Nair placed that the penalty was levied at the maximum rate i.e. 200 per cent. He had also adverted to the circumstances under which the legal representatives of the assessee are placed and such circumstances are not disputed before us. 59. Having regard to the fact that subsequent to the search the business of the assessee was affected considerably and the assessee s legal representatives are put to great financial strain apart from the agony and difficulties attendant on the tortuous course of litigation, we hold that the ends of justice would be met with a levy of minimum penalty instead of penalty at the maximum rate. We order accordingly. 60. In the result, all the appeals are allowed in part.
-
1991 (8) TMI 135 - ITAT COCHIN
Accounting Year, Assessed Income, Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... ion 271(1)(c). We are reinforced in this conclusion on the interpretation placed in Bhagwandas Narayandas v. CIT 1975 98 ITR 194 (Guj.) on the train of words such as money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing occurring in section 132(5) read with section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The principle of ejusdem generis is to be applied in interpreting the words other valuable article or thing . We do so and thus uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. 10. Whether in the Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) the omission of the word other document as is found in section 132(4) is a lacuna or a deliberate omission it is not for us to state. Suffice it to say that strict construction should be placed on the expressions used in a penal section vide Sri Radhakrishna Trading Co. v. CIT 1954 26 ITR 666 (Mad.) and CA. Abraham v. ITO 1961 41 ITR 425 (SC). 11. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the order of the CIT (Appeals) is cancelled
-
1991 (8) TMI 134 - ITAT COCHIN
Previous Year, Surtax Liability, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... hose cases are on different aspects of the matter. To give an epitome of the same, it may be said that the conditions imposed by the Income-tax Officer before granting change of previous year should be reasonable and should not go against the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, and that a petition for the change of previous year has to be disposed of after giving an opportunity to the assessee and the order passed by the Income-tax Officer should be a speaking order and the permission cannot be refused on irrelevant considerations. None can have any quarrel over these propositions. In the case before us, the learned Income-tax Officer has applied his mind to the petition of the assessee and had come to the conclusion that there would be loss to the exchequer by way of surtax liability and such conclusion is based on material on record. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 15. The appeal of the revenue is allowed
-
1991 (8) TMI 133 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Assessment Notice, Business Premises, Promissory Estoppel, Reassessment Notice
-
1991 (8) TMI 132 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Quoted Equity Shares, Revocable Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... the option is not exercised, then the valuation has to be as if the gift is a regular one, i.e., the valuation has to be in the normal course of a transfer/gift. On these facts, we will hold that for the assessment year under appeal, the valuation has to be in terms of Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules since the gift is a revocable one but if the donor does not exercise an option to revoke the gift within the provided for period of 82 months, then at that point of time also, there will be a further valuation of the residuary interest, i.e., in that case, the valuation of the subject-matter shall be as if there is a gift in the normal course of business and it shall be treated so, to repeat, at that point of time. The proceedings under the Gift-tax Act shall be called for again at that point of time as this is held so in view of the specific stipulations in the deed of revocable transfer. We hold accordingly. 11. In the result, assessee succeed in their appeals in the above terms
-
1991 (8) TMI 131 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Chargeable To Tax, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Penalty Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1991 (8) TMI 130 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
... ...
... ... ..... latest case law, namely, Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. relied by the Departmental Representative has followed Sanghi Motors vs. UOI and Ors. and dissented from the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs. Union of India relied by the learned authorised representative. Their Lordships have also referred to the case Sinkakollu Subbarao and Co. and Ors. vs. UOI and Ors. (1988) 71 CTR (AP) 34 (1988) 173 ITR 708 (AP). We have also relied on the decision of the special Bench, Delhi in the case of Rishiroop Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO as the said bench followed the jurisdictional High Court. So considering all the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, we hold that the first appellate authority is not right in holding that the addition on account of sales-tax collected and not paid is noit taxable. Therefore, the orders of the first appellate authority are accordingly reversed and the appeals of the Revenue succeed. 17. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 129 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... rizol (India) Ltd. was the provisions of section 40A(5)(a)(ii) on one hand and section 40(c)(iii) on the other. Sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 40 has since been deleted and was not operative in the assessment year 1986-87 to which the present appeal pertains. What is attracted in this case is sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of section 40, which is in pari materia with section 40A(5)(a)(ii) (second part). The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Lubrizol (India) Ltd. has been rendered in the context of section 40A(5)(a)(ii). As such, the ratio of that decision can validly be applied to the present case. In this view of the matter, we hold that the two revenue authorities were fully justified in taking into consideration the above expenditure for the purpose of computation of disallowance under section 40(c) of the IT Act. There is thus no merit in this ground of the appeal also. 8. In the result, we do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss the same
-
1991 (8) TMI 128 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Accounting Year, Exchange Fluctuation, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... 7/Bom./84, dated March 21, 1987, wherein the Tribunal had held that the bar as contained in section 43A(2) would not be applicable for computing the actual cost of an asset for the purpose of investmet allowance as such provisions deal exclusively with the claim of development rebate. The Bombay High Court in the case referred to above has clearly held that for the purpose of computing deduction on account of development rebate, the provisions of section 43A(1) of the Act had to be ignored. If they have to be ignored for the purpose of computing the deduction on account of development rebate, there is no reason why they should be taken into consideration for determining the claim of investment allowance. In the light of the above discussion, we shall uphold the order of the CIT(A) denying the assessee investment allowance on the losses incurred due to currency fluctuation. 22. In the result, the appeal by the assessee and the cross appeal by the department are allowed in part
-
1991 (8) TMI 127 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Valid Notice ... ... ... ... ..... e undisputed fact that Shradhadeep property was given on rent to Shri Dharamsey Khatau might have escaped ITO s notice. Apart from this, in the case of Shri Harsh Dinesh, it was the trust, namely Harsh Dinesh Trust, which was the co-owner in the Shradhadeep property and not he. In this view of the matter, the reported cases, relied on behalf of the assessees need not be adverted to. Suffice it to say that the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case are quite different than that considered in those cases. Further, the decision in Broach District Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. s case and Strawboard Mfg. Co. Ltd. s case were rendered in a quite different context. For all these reasons, we have to hold that the I.T. authorities were fully justified in not granting exemption to the assessees under section 54 of the Act in respect of the investment of Rs. 82,850 each made by them in Anjali. 10. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed
-
1991 (8) TMI 126 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Time Limit For Completion ... ... ... ... ..... l be seen, are materially different. Firstly, the order of transfer of cases was challenged in a writ. Assessment proceedings were stayed by the Single Judge. Thereafter, the cases were transferred back to the ITO, Assam, and a direction to make assessments within a specified period was given by a Single Judge. The question of any assessment order being challenged did not arise in that case. We, therefore, do not see how this decision helps the appellant. The last decision relied upon on behalf of the appellant is the decision of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory s case. The facts of this case are also wholly distinguishable from the facts in the present case.The issue there was also different and this case has absolutely no relevance to the issue before us in the present case. Consequently, we would reject all the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, confirm the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss the appeal
............
|
