|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 237 Records
-
1983 (3) TMI 78 - ITAT BANGALORE
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Sales Tax Liability, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... e authorities actually issued a demand notice for Rs. 14,95,252. The said amount was debited in the account. The assessee raised various contentions regarding this liability to pay the duty and requested to cancel the demand notice. On those facts, the Bombay High Court held that the duty was levied and the demand for that was not withdrawn or cancelled, and the liability to pay Rs. 14,95,252 remained as an ascertained liability and the assessee was entitled to have this amount allowed as expenses. The above facts are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, neither there is any liability to sales tax nor any demand was raised by the sales tax authorities. Hence, that case has no application. 12. Hence, in our view, the sum of Rs. 67,50,872 has been rightly disallowed by the lower authorities. Thus, we uphold the same. 13. This para is not reproduced here as it involves minor issue . 14. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 77 - ITAT AMRITSAR
In Part, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... authority in the case of Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai certainly supports the assessee s case. The assessee has claimed that the shares of its partners are equal and has allocated the profits amongst the partners on that basis in the books of accounts and filed Form No. 11 for the first assessment year on that basis. All these relevant circumstances go to show that provision of section 13 of the Partnership Act can be invoked when the partnership deed is found to be silent on the issue of profit-sharing ratio. On this footing also the ITO s action in granting the registration and continuation of registration on the first occasion for the two assessment years was in order. Consequently, we cancel the orders of the ITO passed under section 186(1) for the two assessment years, restore the original orders of the ITO granting registration and continuation of registration for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 and allow the appeals of the assessee. 7. Both the appeals are allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 76 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Agricultural Land, Capital Gains Tax, Fair Market Value, Income Tax, Initiating Acquisition Proceedings, Tax Evasion, Wealth Tax
-
1983 (3) TMI 75 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ly falls within the ratio laid down in the case of Hyderabad Stone Depot as subsequently confirmed in Krishna Mining Co. (1980) 15 CTR (AP) 203 (FB) (1980) 122 ITR 362 (AP)(FB). As in these cases so also in the case of the assessee, there is a provision for sharing the loss by the adult partners. For this we may again refer to cl.5 of the partnership deed in the case of the assessee quoted above. It states that the losses have to be shared by the partners according to their share in the profit as stated in cl.3 of the deed. They are, therefore, to share the loss of the minor in excess of his share in the partnership in the same proportion, although the unit of distribution will be 90. In other words, the minor s loss will be shares in the proportion 25 20 25 10 10. We are, therefore, in agreement with the finding of the AAC that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of registration for all the above three years under appeal. 8. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 74 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... no income from the activity of acquisition of land, investment in construction of factory building etc. And making of advances for purchase of raw materials and machinery, it cannot be said that these activities were not in the nature of a business of rice milling contemplated by the instrument of partnership. Besides, in the latest ruling on this issue, the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Mandsaur Starch and Chemicals vs. CIT has laid down that where a firm was genuine, the claim of existence of the firm and registration could not be refused on the sole ground that the firm did not carry on any business during the previous year. Considering all this, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the AAC rightly accepted the claim of existence of the firm and rightly directed the ITO to register the assessee firm. On this issue, therefore, the order of the AAC in our view, was justified and is upheld. 6. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 73 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... , it was also responsible to explain the source of investment in such construction. It would have been a different thing if the company would not have accepted the action of the assessee. However, that is not the case here. The assessee, therefore, cannot be called upon to explain the source of investment in the building, even if the construction was carried on either before the company was incorporated or before it was granted the certificate of commencement of the business. On this finding alone, the additions of Rs. 1,33,941 and Rs. 2,10,935 will stand deleted from the assessment for the asst. yr. 1976-77 and 1977-78 respectively. 10. In the view we are taking, it is not necessary for us to deal with the other grounds of appeal, namely, whether the reference to the valuation officer was or was not called for and whether the setting aside of the assessment requiring the ITO to determine the quantum of additions was justified. 11. In the result, both the appeals are allowed
-
1983 (3) TMI 72 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... assets so brought in by the partners. In this view of the matter, we fail to appreciate how Rs. 18,000 worked out by the IAC (Asst.) could at all be included in the total income of the assessee. It is also pertinent to note that w.e.f. 28th February, 1975, the assessee ceased to be a partner in the firm. Therefore, it is not possible to sustain the action of the income-tax authorities since after the retirement the assessee ceased to have any right, title or interest in the Cinema building and other assets. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as various documents already brought on record, we have no doubt in our mind that Rs. 18,000 being the income from property worked out by the IAC (Asst.) cannot be included in the total income of the assessee. We would, therefore, delete the same in each of the years under appeal. Para 9 to 11 not being relevant to the controversy are omitted . 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 71 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Assessment Year, Family Hotchpot, Family Property, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... , profits and gains referred to in section 4(1) . Secondly, it must be computed in the manner laid down in the Act . If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the amendment made with effect from 1-4-1980 simply incorporates the law laid down by the highest Court of the land. Again, it is pertinent to note that the ITO had, in fact, allowed such set off in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 as mentioned above. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the AAC. 8. Before we part with this appeal, we may mention that the AAC has not allowed the entire loss of Rs. 17,420 claimed by the assessee but has restricted such allowance to the extent of the share of profit from the other two firms. Since the assessee has not come up in cross-objection/appeal, we would confirm the order of the AAC under appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 70 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Appeal To Supreme Court, High Court, Land Acquisition, Net Wealth, Right To Receive Compensation, Valuation Date
-
1983 (3) TMI 69 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Hotel Building, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... so responsible to explain the source of investment in such construction. It would have been a different thing if the company would not have accepted the action of the assessee. However, that is not the case here. The assessee, therefore, cannot be called upon to explain the source of investment in the building, even if the construction was carried on either before the company was incorporated or before it was granted the certificate of commencement of the business. On this finding alone, the additions of Rs. 1,33,941 and Rs. 2,10,935 will stand deleted from the assessments for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, respectively. 10. In the view we are taking, it is not necessary for us to deal with the other grounds of appeal, namely, whether the reference to the Valuation Officer was or was not called for and whether the setting aside of the assessments requiring the ITO to determine the quantum of additions, was justified. 11. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 68 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Cinema Building, Rental Income, Share In Partnership, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... d allowed depreciation on the assets so brought in by the partners. In this view of the matter, we fail to appreciate how Rs. 18,000 worked out by the IAC (Assessment) could at all be included in the total income of the assessee. It is also pertinent to note that with effect from 28-2-1975, the assessee ceased to be a partner in the firm. Therefore, it is not possible to sustain the action of the income-tax authorities since after the retirement the assessee ceased to have any right, title or interest in the cinema building and other assets. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as various documents already brought on record, we have no doubt in our mind that Rs. 18,000 being the income from property worked out by the IAC (Assessment) cannot be included in the total income of the assessee. We would, therefore, delete the same in each of the years under appeal. 9 to 12. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1983 (3) TMI 67 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Actual Cost, Depreciation And Development Rebate, State Financial Corporation ... ... ... ... ..... ahabad High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Vishnu Industrial Enterprises 1980 122 ITR 919. Although this case relates to a reverse situation, where development rebate reserve was created in subsequent years, though it related to the development rebate claimed in an earlier year. However, the observations of the Court at different places certainly go to help the assessee. It was observed at page 923 of the report, that the full reserve may not be created in a single year, depending on the available income it may take more than one year to create the reserve to the full extent of the development rebate, which is allowable. Respectfully following these observations of the Court, which are binding on us, we direct the ITO to allow the development rebate not only with reference to development reserve of Rs. 12,548 created in the year under appeal but also with reference to the carried forward reserve of Rs. 16,195 created in 1969. 7. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 66 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Late Filing, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... pplications, i.e., whether the same were rejected or allowed. So the assessee was under the bona fide belief that the extension of time as sought by him was granted. Their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court have considered a similar issue in the case of CIT v. Bharat Prakashan IT Reference No. 126 (Ahd.), dated 16-7-1980 . Their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid case have held that the assessee filed application for extension of time. The ITO neither rejected the application nor sent any communication in this respect to the assessee. The assessee was under bona fide belief that his application for extension of time has been granted. This constitutes a reasonable cause. Respectfully following the said decision of their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court, we hold that the assessee had reasonable causes which prevented him from filing the returns within the time. Accordingly, we confirm the view taken by the AAC. 10. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 65 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Net Wealth, Such Person ... ... ... ... ..... there were no prospects of an early settlement of claims for compensation by U.K. nationals. Further, in the case under consideration, the assessee cannot approach any Court in India where he can enforce his right forcefully. He is at the mercy of Ugandan Government. Uganda is a sovereign country and, therefore, neither Indian nor British Government can compel the Ugandan Government to return the property or compensation thereof to the assessee. Looking to the facts of this case, the right of compensation is contingent and once the property is vested in the Government of Uganda the said property no longer remains with the assessee. Therefore, the foreign property in Uganda should not be included in the wealth of the assessee in the year under consideration. However, as and when the assessee receives the property back or compensation thereof the same should be included in the wealth of the assessee. Accordingly, we confirm the view taken by the AAC. 4. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 64 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Income Of HUF ... ... ... ... ..... he HUF which consisted of herself, her husband, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law and her minor son and three daughters. The Supreme Court held that the income from the gifted amount would have to be taxed in the hands of the HUF. Although the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda has not been cited in this Pushpa Devi s case, it can be said that this decision is quite consistent with the decision in Surjit Lal Chhabda s case because in Pushpa Devi s case there was a coparcenary in existence within the HUF in question. However, in the present case although the gift might have been made to the HUF there is no coparcenary in existence in that HUF. Therefore, this case is distinguishable from the case of Pushpa Devi. Consistently with the decision of the Supreme Court in Surjit Lal Chhabda s case we hold that the income from the amounts gifted to the HUF cannot be taxed in the hands of the HUF but would have to be taxed in the hands of the individual assessee. 7. The appeal is rejected.
-
1983 (3) TMI 63 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Net Wealth, Provident Fund ... ... ... ... ..... to the estate only on the date of payment. With regard to the gratuity amount, our attention was not drawn to any provision by which exemption has been granted as regards the amount. If the deceased person had retired from service, the amount would have become payable to him at some stage and it would not have been exempt from wealth-tax even in his own hands. We, therefore, see no reason why the amount should be exempt from tax in the hands of the executor. With regard to this amount also, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned representative of the assessee that the amount can be treated as an asset only from the date of payment. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the amount would not have become payable to the estate of the deceased immediately on his death. 8. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the provident fund and gratuity amounts are includible in the net wealth of the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 62 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Family Property ... ... ... ... ..... y particular item the entries are not mutually exclusive. In simple terms, the rule is that we have to choose the most appropriate entry and apply it. There is nothing extraordinary in this. This is well established principle with regard to all cases where the entries have to be ascertained to cover items. In this case, rifle shooting is a sport and would most appropriately be considered under clause (23) and not under clause (22). Therefore, the aforesaid decision in the case of Arundhati Balkrishna, although cited by the assessee s counsel, is actually in favour of the revenue. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the assessee would not be entitled to exemption under clause (22). However, the assessee is entitled to his claim for depreciation. His case is covered by this Tribunal s decision in the case of ITO v. Shri Ajitnath Bhagwan Jain Deharasar IT Appeal Nos. 961 and 962 (Ahd.) of 1980 dated 20-6-1981 . 14. In the result the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Customs - Penalty for short-landing ... ... ... ... ..... partment is quashed and this order and the consequent demand for penalty shall not be given effect to. The Deputy Collector will re-hear the matter afresh in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made in this judgment and after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and also an opportunity to adduce such evidence as the petitioner may desire. 8. Mr. S.K. Mitter submits that inasmuch as no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of his clients. The averments made in the petition are not admitted. All the points urged in the writ petition are also left open. 9. The Deputy Collector will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from receiving the signed copy of the ordering portion of the judgment and till the matter is disposed of the petitioner will not dispose of its fixed assets except in the usual course of business. 10. All parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order.
-
1983 (3) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Revision - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... ri Kumar and I reject the same. 46. On the above discussion, it follows that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. But, in view of the order of stay granted by this Court, the petitioners have not filed their objections to the show cause notice. In this view, it is necessary for this Court to grant a reasonable time to the petitioners to file their objections before the Government and I consider it proper to grant at least one month s time from this day for the said purpose. 47. In the light of my above discussion, I hold that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule issued in the case. But, the petitioners are granted one month s time from this day for filing their objections to the show cause notices before the Government. 48. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. 49. Let copies of this order, be communicated to the respondents within 10 days from this day.
-
1983 (3) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Short landing-penalty ... ... ... ... ..... blic Notice No. 132 was in modification of the Customs House Public Notice No. 81, which the Deputy Collector relied upon in coming to the decision that the petitioner was liable to a penalty under section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. For the reasons stated above I allow this application and set aside the impugned order. The customs authorities will, however, be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice on the petitioner if they consider that in spite of the Public Notice No. 132, the petitioner can be held liable on the basis of the ex parte insurance survey conducted almost a month after the discharge of the cargo. The penalty which has been deposited with the Collector of Customs be refunded to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of service of the signed copy of the ordering portion of the judgment. 9. The rule is, thus, made absolute without any order as to costs. All parties to act on a signed copy of the ordering portion of the judgment.
....
|
