|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 663 Records
-
2004 (8) TMI 635 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er of the CIT(A) and direct him to examine the various conditions mentioned in section 80RR because the income earned by the assessee for playing cassettes from foreign source as mentioned in section 80RR is eligible for deduction subject to fulfilment of various conditions enumerated by us hereinabove. 16. Before parting with we may add that the principle of fresh adjudication are not applicable to the income-tax proceedings. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to go into the details/circumstances/facts under which the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction under section 80RR in earlier and subsequent years as stated by the assessee. At any rate, this contention was not raised by the assessee before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) is at liberty to examine this aspect also. The CIT(A) will readjudicate the issue involved in this appeal afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to both the sides. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2004 (8) TMI 634 - ITAT MUMBAI
Business income ... ... ... ... ..... facts, the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court refused to interfere. We do not see any parity in the facts in that case and those present before us. 8. The intention is to be gathered from the conduct. However, the conduct of the assessee in selling off the plant and machinery cannot be taken as detrimental to it. In today rsquo s world, value of all things, including the plant and machinery, is subject to fast depreciation. It was, therefore, out of the business prudence that the assessee sold all the plant and machinery. No fault can be found with such action. The fact remains that there was a lull in the market and therefore, the assessee had to let out its premises on leave and licence. 9. In the above facts, it cannot be said that the income in question was not business income. Hence, finding no merit in the order of the learned CIT(A), we hereby cancel the same and direct the Assessing Officer to tax at the income as business income. 10. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 633 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment - Additions to income ... ... ... ... ..... was before the Assessing Officer including copies of statement of the assessee made before the Narcotics Cell, by the assessee. The CIT(A) will also go through the entire statement to find out whether there is any material which indicate that the assessee has made any investment out of Rs. 5 lakhs alleged to be received as on-money and readjudicate this addition afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to both the sides. 15. Before parting with, we may add that the ld. CIT(A) is also free to examine from the assessment record whether there is any material containing evidence of investment of Rs. 5 lakhs alleged to be received as on-money in the assessment record of this assessment year from subsequent assessment years. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee shall furnish the statement of affairs as on 31-3-1992, cash flow chart for the period 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993 and statement of affairs as on 31-3-1993. 16. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 632 - ITAT MUMBAI
Business expenditure, Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... carries on the business of a hotel or of a tour operator or of a travel agent. However, it has not been made out as to how the money changing activity provided by the assessee to its foreign customers, is covered in the said Explanation. As observed hereinabove, undisputedly, the assessee is not making any profit from providing such facility. This facility is provided as an added facility to the foreign customers. Due to provision of such facility, the foreign customers do not have to go to bank to get their foreign exchange in Indian currency. This facility is available to them in the hotel premises itself. This facility cannot, therefore, be said to be a sale in any shop owned or managed by the person who carries on the business of a hotel . There is no element of sale. The Explanation (c) to section 80HHD(6), hence, does not have any bearing whatsoever to the said facilities. 13. In view of the above, ground No. 3 is also rejected. 14. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 631 - ITAT MUMBAI
Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... in the statement under section 132(4). At the same time, considering the several discrepancies and the scale of turnover outside the books, brought out by the seized material, very meticulously analysed by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order, we do not agree with the learned counsel for the assessee either that what is disclosed in the return as undisclosed income of the block is reasonable, and no further addition is called for. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that an estimated net addition of Rs. 15 lakhs to the returned estimated undis- closed income of the block of Rs. 35 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and sustain an estimated net addition of Rs. 15 lakhs to the estimated income of Rs. 35 lakhs disclosed by the assessee in the block return. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 14. In the result, assessee rsquo s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 630 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation, Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... tually allowed rsquo to the assessee for the past years. lsquo Actually allowed rsquo does not mean lsquo notionally allowed rsquo . If the assessee has not claimed deduction of depreciation in any past year it cannot be said that it was notionally allowed to him. A thing is lsquo allowed rsquo when it is claimed. A subtle distinction, is there when we examine the language used in section 16 and sections 34 and 37 of the Act. It is rightly said that a privilege cannot be to a disadvantage and an option cannot become an obligation. The Assessing Officer cannot grant depreciation allowance when the same is not claimed by the assessee. (p. 56) 9. The learned counsel of the assessee admitted that the matter now stands covered in favour of the department by the decision in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. (supra), which has considered and distinguished the decision in the case of Mahindra Mills (supra). Therefore ground No. 4 is accepted. 10. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT MUMBAI
Business expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... extortion, hafta, bribe etc., This argument is also not acceptable on the ground that for any expenditure to be an allowable expenditure, it must has to be proved as actually incurred as well as that it was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of assessee rsquo s business. In the absence of any detail, these expenditures are not allowable as being not proved to be actually incurred or to be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. 8. In view of the above factual and legal discussion, we hold that the expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of secret commission for the years under consideration are not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to disallow the entire expenditure claimed by assessee on account of secret commission. The order of Tribunal dated 31-3-1986 is, therefore, modified to the above extent and departmental appeals are considered to be allowed in the above mentioned terms.
-
2004 (8) TMI 628 - ITAT AGRA
Agricultural income ... ... ... ... ..... ities if so required so as to decide the actual extent of agricultural activity on the land owned by the assessee in the year under consideration. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. Since in the other appeals identical facts and circumstances are involved and no separate arguments either by the assessee or the Revenue were addressed and in fact the common stand was that the appeals can be decided on the basis of arguments advanced in ITA No. 201/Agr/1999. Thus, for the reasons discussed in detail in ITA No. 201/Agr/1999 the grounds raised by the assessees in the appeals are also allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2004 (8) TMI 627 - ITAT DELHI
Income from house property ... ... ... ... ..... house when he was staying with his parents at B-76, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Thus, in other words according to the Assessing Officer the house in question was not in the occupation of Master Pulkit Seth. It is mentioned that house for residential purpose does not require a compulsory residence in that house and which only require that the house should be available for residential purpose of the assessee all the time. Inasmuch as the essential aspect of the matter would be whether the assessee has retained exclusive control over the possession of the house owned by him and though he may not be actually present in the house when he was away from it and as such he is still in the constructive possession of his residential house. Thus, we do not find any force in the reason given by the Assessing Officer in denying the claim of the assessee under section 23(2) of the Act. We, therefore, uphold the order passed by CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 626 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction of tax at source ... ... ... ... ..... ary has been paid in the garb of conveyance expense. Since this is not the case here, we are of the view that the assessee was under no obligation to deduct the tax at source on conveyance allowance. When such are the views of the Tribunal, the assessee employer cannot be faulted is holding the view that the conveyance allowance is not taxable in the hands of the employees, and, therefore, excluding the same from estimated income under section 192. It is not even revenue rsquo s case that the amount so paid by the assessee tax deductor was so excessive or unreasonable that it was de facto a payment of salary in the garb of allowances. In this view of the matter, the very basis of demands raised under section 201 read with section 192 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) indeed erred in law in sustaining the same. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same. 8. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 625 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from house property ... ... ... ... ..... accordingly. This disposes of ground No. 1(a) in favour of assessee. 15. As regards ground No. 1(b), no specific contention has been raised by the ld. AR of assessee-appellant before us during the course of hearing of arguments. However, it is revealed from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the assessee rsquo s claim in respect of municipal taxes for want of proof. The disallowance of the assessee rsquo s claim for municipal taxes, is, in the circumstances found to be quite justified. As regards other two items being insurance premium and ground rent paid by assessee, we find no fault within the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the insurance premium and ground rent after verification and so we do not interfere with the ld. CIT(A) rsquo s order in respect of these two items. 16. As regards ground No. 1(c), the same is consequential. 17. In the result, this appeal of assessee may be treated as partly allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 624 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Business expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... terest aggregating to Rs. 4,19,545 under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of advances made to certain parties free of interest. 7.1 Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in this ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee was placed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but he has not adjudicated upon the same. 7.2 Ld. DR for the revenue, on perusal of the records, was fair enough to concede that this issue, though raised before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not been decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 7.3 In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for deciding the same on merits, of course after affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties of being heard. Accordingly, ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 623 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hem as his income. A proper construction of the licensing agreement, the deposit agreement, the correspondence relating to the disputes between the HCL and Tolerant and the arbitration award shows that only when the award was made and was accepted by both the parties by affixing their signature thereto did any income accrue to Tolerant and not before. 13. The authorities cited on behalf of the Revenue relate to the question of waiver of income after it had accrued, a situation with which we are not concerned. 14. In the result, we hold that the technical know how fees received by Tolerant in the amount of Rs. 48,38,314 is not assessable in the year under appeal. It accrued only when the arbitration award was made and was accepted by HCL and Tolerant (now Veritas). Ground No. 5 is allowed. 15. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make a reassessment are dismissed as not pressed . 16. The appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 622 - ITAT DELHI
Charitable or religious trust ... ... ... ... ..... f the society. In these circumstances, we find no hesitation in holding that Mrs. Sudha Tiwari falls within the category of persons enumerated in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act and the increment in the salary was also unreasonable and not commensurate with the services rendered by her for the society. As such, the claim of exemption is hit by section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who has rightly upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 16. So far as the issue of grant of aids and contributions received by the assessee is concerned, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has rightly treated it to be the part of the income of the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this count also. Accordingly, we uphold the same. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 621 - ITAT MUMBAI
Capital gains ... ... ... ... ..... d by it is not taxable under section 45 as it did not have any cost of acquisition and therefore, the mode of computation as statutorily prescribed under section 48 would fail. It is only in this context that the assessee, in order to deny its liability to capital gains tax, had contended that section 49 was not applicable and that the stamp duty paid on acquisition of the property in question did not amount to cost of acquisition within the meaning of section 48. We have already rejected the aforesaid contention of the assessee and upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) that the capital gain arising on transfer of the property in question is exigible to tax under section 45 read with section 49(1)(iii)( d). The cost of acquisition required to be adopted under section 49 has therefore to be calculated and adopted by the Assessing Officer. Ground No. 2 taken by the Department is therefore dismissed. 21. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 620 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from other sources ... ... ... ... ..... considered opinion that this matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine this aspect of the issue and then decide the issue afresh and therefore we set aside the orders of learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to examine the claim of the assessee that interest expenditure was incurred for earning this interest income and with further direction to allow set off of interest paid, which has a nexus with interest receipt and accordingly assess the net interest income under the head lsquo Income from other sources rsquo and exclude that portion of interest expenditure from business expenditure which has nexus with interest receipt and accordingly recompute the deduction under section 80HHC and pass necessary order as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2004 (8) TMI 619 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... bts was even determined as a loss in any of the past assessment years. Without this finding, in our humble opinion, the provisions of section 72 cannot be invoked. With the result, the authorities below have wrongly disallowed the claim of bad debts by invoking section 72 of the Income-tax Act. Still one aspect has yet to be seen that whether the claim is admissible under section 36(1)(vi) read with section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act or not. Both the authorities have not applied their mind in this regard. So in the fitness of circumstances it is fair and reasonable to restore this issue back to Assessing Officer to examine the claim of bad debt in the light of the provisions of section 36 of the Income-tax Act. With these remarks we restore the ground raised by the assessee back to Assessing Officer to be decided de novo, needless to say after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2004 (8) TMI 618 - ITAT MUMBAI
Cash credits - Method of accounting - building construction activities - Addition on loan and interest - Addition on inflated purchases -
HELD THAT:- As seen from the facts, profits in the case of a trade adventure/project may be determinable in each year without waiting for the whole adventure/ project to be finally completely, yet there is also another method of accounting for profits of the adventure/project referred to as "Completed Project" method of accounting, which too is a recognized method, which the assessee has been following consistently. It may be quite relevant to observe here that we need be consciously aware that the profits of each year being determinable at the year end is one thing and that the profits of each year are essentially to be determined at the end of each year is another thing.
Respectfully following Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd.’s case [1993 (9) TMI 346 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and in the case of Rajesh Construction, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer having not drawn any finding that the accounts of assessee suffer from any defect nor that from the method of accounting followed by assessee, true/correct profits of assessee cannot be deduced and the assessee having been following the "Completed Project" method consistently, which being a recognized method of accounting, the assessee’s method of accounting cannot be rejected nor is there any justification for estimating assessee’s profits of the year from the assessee’s business activity of building construction by resorting to applying of percentage of profit to the work-in-progress of the year. In that view of the matter, we find no fault with the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same.
Addition on loan and interest - The assessee had furnished the confirmation letters of all the creditors, addresses and G.I.R. numbers of the creditors, who are I.T. assessee’s made specific request to the Assessing Officer to issue summons to the creditors but the Assessing Officer did not issue the same observing that the addresses are incomplete, the giving of loan as also the repayment of the same and the payment of interest having been through cheque, TDS having been made from interest payment and the loans being quite old and having already been repaid, we agree with the conclusion/decision drawn by ld. CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition and the same cannot, in our opinion, be found fault with. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same.
In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Addition on inflated purchases - We find that as regards purchase of goods worth Rs. 77,500 from M/s. Tiles India, the entry is incorrect and admittedly no such purchase has been made. It was only after Assessing Officer’s enquiry from M/s. Tiles India and after the Assessing Officer coming to know that there is no corresponding sale entry in the books of account of seller, when the Assessing Officer put query to the assessee that the assessee explained that this money was misappropriated by their ex-accountant. However, the assessee ought to have appropriately rectifier the entries or made appropriate remarks in this regard, which was not done. The truth or falsity of the assessee’s stand regarding the said money having been misappropriated by the assessee’s ex-accountant remained to be examined. Mere filing of a copy of complaint is not enough.
As regards business loss, the assessee ought to have claimed it as such, that is as a business loss due to that money having been misappropriated by their ex-accountant and ought to have furnished material/evidence to establish the fact, which the assessee has failed to do and seems to be content with mere filing a copy of the complaint. So many times even the complaints are found to be false; and to put a check thereon there exist a specific statutory provisions in the Indian Penal Code like sections 182 and 211 I.P.C. providing for prosecution for lodging false complaint/information. Be that as it may, we find the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting this addition to be not proper and rather we find the addition made by Assessing Officer to be quite justified inasmuch as the entry of this purchase is admittedly wrong/false. We, therefore, reverse the impugned order of ld.CIT(A) and restore that of Assessing Officer on this count. We order accordingly.
In the result, revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.
-
2004 (8) TMI 617 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income escaping assessment ... ... ... ... ..... r of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that (e)the interest income is business income, and (f)the appellant does not have any local sales. 2. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that part of the interest received was from fixed deposits from banks. These deposits were kept to avail credit facility from the bank, for the export business. 36. The issues raised this year are identical with those raised in the assessment year 1991-92. For the reasons given in our order, the order of the learned CIT(A) in this behalf is set aside and the matter is restored to him with the similar directions as given in our order for the assessment year for re-deciding the issue of admissibility of deduction under section 80HHC in accordance with law. Ground No. 2 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 37. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, as per directions given above.
-
2004 (8) TMI 616 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Export - Baggage, Passenger baggage - Prohibited goods - Confiscation - EXIM Policy, Importer-Exporter Code Number - Penalty
............
|
