|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 300 Records
-
1989 (9) TMI 162 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... s. Ashoka Betemut Co. (P) Ltd. (1985) 21 TTJ (Mad) 465 (TM (1984) 10 Ltd 788 (Mad) (TM. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 20. We have carefully considered the facts on record. The provision of a telephone at the residence of the Managing Director of the company was for business purposes of the company. It the Managing Director used some of the calls for personal purposes, that would not make the expenditure incurred by the company being not for the purpose of its business. At best, the expenditure referable to the personal user of the telephone by the managing Director may constitute extra remuneration to the Managing Director. But so far as the company is concerned, the entire amount will be allowable as business expenditure. Following the ration of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Ashoka Betelnut Co. (P) Ltd., we direct the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 8,375. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 161 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... terest under s. 220(2) cannot be allowed as a deduction. These decisions are reported in Arun Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom), Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 751 (Cal), CIT vs. Oriental Carpet Manufactures (India) P. Ltd. (1973) 90 ITR 373 (P and H) (which is the jurisdictional High Court), CIT vs. International Instruments (P) Ltd. (1984) 39 CTR (Kar) 182 (1983) 144 ITR 936 (Kar) and CIT vs. Ghatkopar Estate and Finance Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1989) 75 CTR (Bom) 124 (1989) 177 ITR 222 (Bom) (1989) 42 Taxman 179 (Bom). When interest under s. 220(2) is not allowable as business expenditure, the question of allowing penalty under s. 221 as business expenditure just does not arise. 50. The last ground is regarding the claim of deduction under s. 80G. No. arguments were addressed on this point and so this ground is treated as dismissed. 51. Both the appeals are partly allowed. 52. The Cross objection may be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1989 (9) TMI 160 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... ployed less than 10 regular workers, it could be heard to say that on any particular day, it wanted to employ additional casual workers, to enhance the figure to the requisite number, but that it could not do so by reason of non-availability of the casual labourers. If it chose to have less than the requisite number of regular workers on its muster roll, it ran the risk of not satisfying the requirement on such days on which the necessary number of casual workers was not available. This requirement was examined by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sawyer s Asia Ltd. (1979) 11 CTR (Bom) 285 (1980) 122 ITR 259 (Bom). Therefore, on this point also, the order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to him for a decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the above observations and after giving a due opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well as to the Department. 11.In the result the appeal filed by the Department is partly allowed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 159 - ITAT DELHI-A
Assessment Year, Investment Allowance, Mistake Apparent From Record, Scientific Research ... ... ... ... ..... see to be expenditures on Scientific Research as done by the IAC (Asst.). But he did say that the question whether the assessee was entitled to the claim of deduction under sec. 35 was a debatable issue. From the mere finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) that the business commenced during the year, the allowance of expenditure claimed under sec. 35 could not automatically follow. A perusal of sec. 35 shows that the matter required to be examined by the assessing officer in terms of the requirements and provisions of sec. 35. It also involved the interpretation of the term Scientific Research . Therefore, the matter rested in the realm of appeal rather than pertaining to error apparent from the record . Having regard to the above, we are of the view that there is no force in this appeal and that the situation to which the assessee unfortunately arrived in this year was of its own creation and for which it should thank itself. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 158 - ITAT DELHI-A
Foreign Technician, Income Tax, Technical Services ... ... ... ... ..... (A). Both the parts, in our view, are independent and not cumulative in their operation. Both cover their respective fields. First part covers exemption for income taxable under the head Salaries and the second part covers the income which is in relation to the tax to be paid by the employer as discussed above, irrespective of the head under which the same is taxable. In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration, the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the order of the ITO allowing exemption to tax paid by the Commission. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the order of the Commissioner passed u/s 263, setting aside the order of the ITO. His order is, therefore, annulled and that of the ITO is restored. The above conclusions apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining 27 appeals. The orders of the CIT (Appeals), passed u/s 263 in all these cases are annulled. 8. In the result, all the 28 appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 157 - ITAT DELHI-A
Assessment Year, From Other Sources, Income From Business, Set Off, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... se. Their Lordships observed that the intention of the appellant was to go out of business all together, which is not so in the present case. 17. Similarly in the case of Super Fine Cables (P.) Ltd., their Lordships observed that --- What has to be seen is whether the asset is being exploited commercially by the letting out or whether it is being let out for the purpose of enjoying the rent. The distinction between the two is a narrow one and has to depend on certain facts peculiar to each case. 17.1. The facts in the present case are different. 18. In the light of facts stated in earlier part of this order and dealing with judge made law in later part we are convinced that the income in the present case from leasing out commercial assets is to be treated as income from business and the assessee is entitled to set off of unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation coming from earlier years. CIT (Appeals) s action is, therefore, reversed and assessee s appeal stands allowed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT DELHI-A
Application For Rectification, Assessment Year, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... e applications filed on behalf of the assessee but not to the applications filed on behalf of the department. Before the law every one is equal, it cannot be slanted in favour of the assessee at the cost of the revenue or vice versa. The Law of Limitation vests a right in a party and if the limitation expires, a vested right accrues to the other party and that right cannot be easily tampered with by mere technicalities. Therefore, none of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee advance the cause of the assessee. To the petition filed by the assessee in time now but sought to be disposed of after the expiry of the four years, is in time we fail to see how on the same logic and reasoning the petition filed by the Department in time but disposed of by the Tribunal out of time could be said to be barred by limitation. What is sauce to the goose is also sauce to the gander. We, therefore, see no merit in this misc. petition and we, accordingly, dismiss it.
-
1989 (9) TMI 155 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... rovision overrides the other one. The plain meaning of the amendment to s. 43B is that even if any collection is made during the accounting period at the fag end of the year but payment is made thereafter, then such payment is not allowable and this is the correct meaning of s. 43B which hits the claims of the assessee. The submissions made by the learned Departmental Representative Sri S.C. Kanungo for such meaning cannot be ignored. If the Explanation cannot be given its correct meaning then the intention of the Legislature would be negatived. Such an interpretation is not contemplated. 23. In the result, the Revenue succeeds and the appeals by the Revenue are allowed. 24. Wherever the assessees have come in appeals for disallowing such claims by the AAC, the assessees fails and the appeals by the assessees are dismissed. However, it would be better to refer to the decision in the case of M/S. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. vs. IAC (1989) 34 TTJ (Del) 80 (1988) 29 ITR 469 (Del).
-
1989 (9) TMI 154 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... reference to provisions of s. 139(8) of the Act but object of s. 271(2) and proviso to s. 139(8) is the same. The two provisions are similarly worded and a liability under them arises and is to be computed similarly and on same facts. In a case where the advance-tax paid or tax deducted at source is more than the assessed tax, the assessee-registered firm has only delayed the recovery of refund due to it. No loss is caused to the Revenue. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court has been applied to the case by Hon ble Rajasthan High Court under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act and the matter has been thoroughly discussed. In our opinion, answer to question is self-evident and obvious,. That apart, in the case before us the matter has been referred only to determine the facts and penalty might be levied if assessed tax is found to be more than tax deducted at source. In the above circumstances, we decline to make any reference. 6. In the result, these reference applications are rejected.
-
1989 (9) TMI 153 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... ents under their thumb impressions, as for instance, G. Kutty who was stated to have been engaged during the period 27th Dec., 1978 to 6th May, 1979 when enquired by me whether the services rendered by such workers and payments made to them could be proved by producing them or by adducing other corroborative evidences if the matter was restored to the ITO for further scrutiny, the assessee s representatives expressed their helpnessness as the workers were engaged on casual basis and their where-abouts were not now known. On these facts I uphold the conclusion of the ITO. It is thus evident that the assessee was not able to substantiate its claim on material facts relating to computation of income. It is also not the case that the claim of expenditure was made bona fide. From the Tribunal s finding in our view no question of law arises. We, therefore, decline to make any reference and dismiss this reference application. 6. In the result, the reference application is rejected.
-
1989 (9) TMI 152 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... ibed by the first proviso and the other pre-conditions laid down therein will have to be examined. We do not have any details in this regard before us. In the circumstances, therefore, we consider it fair to remit this aspect of the matter back to the files of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, taking into account the facts of the case, and the provisions of the first proviso to s. 43B. We order accordingly. The above direction would equally apply to this case in hand and the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for carrying out the above directions. 6. Next ground pertains to disallowance of Rs. 50,000 claimed as travelling and sumptuary allowance paid to the partners. This issue was heard along with ITA 260 (Ctk) of 1986 in the case of Pushraj Bijoykumar. For the reasons detailed in the order disposing of the above appeal we uphold the disallowance of travelling and sumptuary allowance. 7. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed in part in the terms stated above.
-
1989 (9) TMI 151 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... case of Gee Vee Enterprises, mentioned supra, the ITO had not made sufficient enquiries before granting registration to the assessee. The court there fore, was considering facts which were entirely different from the facts of the case before us. 13. The facts before us clearly show that the assessee in all fairness and in a bona fide manner based upon in actual happenings in life made disclosure of the amount of Rs. 34,143 received from the insurance company for temporary disablement proved by necessary documents. This amount was, on the facts of case, capital receipt and not taxable and includible in the total income of the assessee. The ITO therefore, reached a correct conclusion that the amount was not includible in the total income of the assessee. His order could not be said to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue with in the ambit of s.263 of the Act. We therefore cancel the order of the Commissioner under appeal before us. 14. Appeal allowed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 150 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment Year, Carry Forward ... ... ... ... ..... t year 1979-80 because no assessment was made as such. These claims have therefore been not examined. But the losses and other allowances have to be determined in accordance with law. We, therefore, modify the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to say that order made by the assessing authority holding the returns invalid is set aside with the directions to treat the returns as validly made in time and proceed to make assessment de novo in accordance with law taking into consideration out observations made supra, particularly the relevant provisions of law referred to and explained above. We direct accordingly. 28. In the cross-objections, the assessee seeks no relief but merely supports the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). These are dismissed as infructuous. 29. In the result, the appeal for 79-80 is considered allowed for statistical purposes and appeals for 80-81 and 82-83 are dismissed. The cross-objections are also dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 149 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Capital Receipt, Insurance Company, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Total Income
-
1989 (9) TMI 148 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... e post-office to the addressee. 8. According to the Tribunal these instructions applied to the facts of the case since remittance from Dubai by telegraphic transfer was made at express request of Dharmibai. In any case there was implied request in view of the fact that the account number had been furnished. Consequently, gift took place at Dubai and was exempt. 9. We find that the conclusion of the Tribunal is based on material on record. It is a finding of fact and no question of law arises. The law does not require a gift deed as assumed in question no. 1. Question No. 1 was not a referable question of law. 10. As regards question No. 2, the Tribunal observed that there was no material to show that the gift was of Rs. 12 lakhs and not of 10 lakhs. Even at the stage of reference no material is shown to indicate that gift was of Rs. 12 lakhs and not of Rs. 10 lakhs. The proposed question No. 2 is not a referable question of law. 11. The application for reference is rejected.
-
1989 (9) TMI 147 - : ITAT BOMBAY-E
Assessment Year, Deduction Of Interest, From Other Sources, House Property, Insurance Company, Interest On Securities
-
1989 (9) TMI 146 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... was no satisfactory proof that the transactions of deposits represented by cash credit entries in the account books of the assessee were genuine. In the present case, we are not concerned with any cash credit entries. We are concerned with adding sources of ornaments found and for that purpose the ownership of the ornaments has to be properly determined. It is not necessary to burden the order with other decisions which were cited. We have dealt with some of the important decisions of the Supreme Court which are of a representative character and which support the respective stands of the contending parties. We would, therefore, observe that the principles laid down in these decisions would be borne in mind by the ITO while making fresh assessment in accordance with our observations as above. 17. Finally the assessments is set aside to be made de novo. The assessee will be given proper opportunity of being heard. The appeal will be treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1989 (9) TMI 145 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Advance Tax, Assessment Year, Business Income, Profits And Gains Of Business, Reasonable Cause, Set Off, Total Income
-
1989 (9) TMI 144 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Assessment Year, In This Behalf, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... is also not of any assistance. In those decisions the Tribunal was concerned with the merits of the addition in a regular assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act. The gifts in these decisions were held to be genuine and accepted by the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances prevailing in those cases. Proper enquiries had been conducted by the ITO in those cases enquiring into the financial capacity of the donor and the source from which the funds flowed to the doneee. In the present case, we are concerned with the revisionary powers of the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. 7. We have gone through the order of the ITO as well as of the CIT and have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the ITO was without making proper enquiries. Such an order is clearly questionable and subject to revision by the CIT u/s. 263. We, therefore, for the above mentioned reasons uphold the order of the CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act. 8. In the result the appeal filled by the assessee is dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 143 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... r taking carried on by the assessee has to be considered separately for reliefs under the above sections with reference to its capital, profits, deficiencies and exemption. The exemption deduction being confined to profits and gains of an industrial undertaking, each unit has to be treated as a separate and distinct undertaking and, accordingly, on these findings, the common order of learned CIT cannot be upheld because the assessments framed in the case of the assessee were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The resultant effect is that the impugned order gets cancelled and the original assessments stand restored. Both the appeals succeed and stand allowed. 6. Before parting with these appeals, we like to mention that the ground taken by the assessee above merger of the assessment order with that of the order of the learned first appellate authority for the asst. yr. 1983-84 having not seriously been pressed, it stands rejected as not pressed.
............
|
