|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 285 Records
-
1992 (3) TMI 128 - ITAT HYDERABAD
A Partner, Late Filing, Levy Of Penalty, Reasonable Cause, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... be satisfied that the assessee has failed to file the return without a reasonable cause. Unless a cause is shown its reasonableness cannot be judged. The reasonable cause being within the personal knowledge of the assessee, it would be for him to show the same. Hence it cannot be said that it would be for the revenue initially to show that the failure was without a reasonable cause. It will be only when the assessee has shown the cause, that opinion can be formed by the concerned authority about its reasonableness or otherwise. 5. Having regard to all the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the assessee failed to prove or assign any reasonable cause for the delayed filing of the return for assessment year 1983-84 and thus committed wilful default under section 271(1)(a). Under the circumstances, I hold that the lower authorities are perfectly justified in imposing the penalty as well as confirming the same. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed
-
1992 (3) TMI 127 - ITAT DELHI-E
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... incurring this expenditure, the assessee acquired no permanent benefit. The aim and object of this expenditure is to make the Restaurant an attractive place for customers to come in and interior decoration by its very nature being of a temporary advantage cannot be treated as capital expenditure. In the case of British India Corpn. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that when the benefit endured only for a period of seven years, the expenditure incurred could not be said to be of capital nature. The learned Accountant Member, though placed reliance upon this decision of the Supreme Court, appeared to have missed the import of the decision in its application to the facts of the case. 4. For these reasons, I am inclined to agree with the view expressed by the learned Judicial Member and hold that the entire expenditure of Rs. 86,000 and odd is revenue expenditure. 5. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for disposal of the appeal in accordance with opinion of the majority.
-
1992 (3) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-E
Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... s decision was also rejected by the Supreme Court, which was reported in 151 I. T. R. Statutes. Having regard to the scheme of the Act when the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the payee, namely, theCalcuttacompany had paid advance tax on this interest, to that extent the liability of the assessee can be deemed to have been discharged, and he cannot be again called upon to pay interest even for that period. It may be that if interest is levied in the hands of the assessee, as contended for by the Revenue, to that extent there may be unjust enrichment on the part of the Government because having already collected the tax due to it from the payee it is again seeking to collect the tax from the payer also, and what is more levying interest for non--payment of such tax. 6. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not incorrect and we uphold it. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (3) TMI 125 - ITAT DELHI-D
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... l it was linked with any electric supply. It is also not possible to agree that the requirement of section 32A that plant and machinery is wholly used for the purpose of business carried only him means that before the investment allowance could be granted, the assessee had to prove that the plant and machinery was wholly used for the purpose of the business carried on by him. Actually speaking the assessee had a turnover of Rs.12 crores and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee was not in the business. 9. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the view that the machinery was installed in the year under appeal even though electric connection was not given and that electric connection was not necessary to complete the installation and that electric connection was necessary only for the purpose of user which is not the same thing as saying that the machinery was installed. 10. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for decision, according to majority opinion.
-
1992 (3) TMI 124 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... sciculture. The term pisciculture as defined in the Websters Dictionary by the Government of India is breeding and rearing of fish. Since it is not disputed that the assessee has been breeding and has been rearing fish and the same was sold in the market as per s. 2(1)(a) of the Act the income on account of breeding and rearing of fish and sale of fish would become an agricultural income. Since it becomes an agricultural income, the same would be outside the ambit of taxation. The Commissioner had directed that the income should be entirely taken as income from other sources which in view of our observation is wrong and we set aside his order to that extent. 3. In regard to the other item of Rs. 16,746 included by the assessee under the head miscellaneous income, the CIT had only asked for examination without there being any error pointing out in the order of the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, the order of the CIT is quashed. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 123 - ITAT DELHI-A
Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Revenue Expenditure, Revision By Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... ch is not his role, as has been held by the Madras High Court in Venkatakrishna Rice Co s case. The reading of his order indicates that, he is of a different opinion from that of his subordinate officer. The Courts have been always taking a serious view of the action of the Commissioner and have more often than one have held that, section 263 must be invoked only when there is error and which error has caused prejudice to the revenue. The Madras High Court has amplified it further by stating that, section 263 is not for the purpose of correcting every unfavourable order, is not for jurisdictional correction or for review of subordinate s order. Since, the Commissioner has only proposed to take a different view from the one taken by the assessing officer, and section 263 is not being intended for change of opinion, the action of the Commissioner is set aside. On merits, we have already held that, the royalty payment is allowable as revenue. In the result, the assessee succeeds
-
1992 (3) TMI 122 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... missible limit under the Payment of Bonus Act. The CIT(A) found that it was a customary bonus and therefore, the provisions of the Bonus Act would not be attracted. 38. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the details furnished by the assessee. In a majority of cases inclusive of bonus and all other allowances the maximum annual earnings do not exceed Rs. 5,000 and in some cases it was as low as Rs. 701. Further, the assessee has been paying around 20 bonus in the past. Considering these aspects of the matter and applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Sons vs. CIT 1977 CTR (SC) 246 (1977) 108 ITR 358 (SC) and also the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Jaysree Cashew Co. in O.P. No. 10393/1984-S dt. 17th Jan., 1989, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). 39. In the result, the ITA No. 1115(Coch)/86 is allowed. ITA Nos. 53(Coch) 87 and 54(Coch)/87 are partly allowed. ITA Nos. 213 and 214(Coch)/87 are dismissed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 121 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... uciary relation vis-a-vis Vinayaka Traders into the extent of his 8 per cent share in DKB and Co. as his capital contribution has come in part from Vinayaka Traders and such fiduciary relationship in view of the sub-s. (3) of s. 4 is outside the purview of sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Further, it was held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Abdul Rahim and Co. (1965) 55 ITR 651 (SC) that under the law of partnership, it is the benamidar who would be entitled to receive the profits from the other partners but for income-tax purposes it does not mean that it is the benamidar alone who can be assessed in respect of the income received by him. For these reasons also, we hold that the assessee is entitled only to 8 per cent share in the profits and losses of the firm DKB and Co. plus 38 per cent of 8 per cent share made over to Vinayaka Traders. The ITO is directed to quantify the amount of share accordingly. 4. The appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 120 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Appellate Tribunal, Manufacture And Production ... ... ... ... ..... 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Act. 26. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J.K.K. Textile Processing Mills which also had an occasion to consider an issue similar to the one raised before us, held that the question whether the assessee s business of bleaching, dyeing and printing of unbleached grey cloth results in manufacture or production of any article, is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. The Special Bench in that case also took note of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of J.B. Kharwar and Sons. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Special Bench in the aforesaid case. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the activities of bleaching, dyeing and printing of grey cloth amount to manufacture or production of any article or thing within the meaning of section 32A of the Act. 28. These appeals and the cross-objection shall now be posted for hearing before the Division Bench.
-
1992 (3) TMI 119 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Income From Other Sources, Profits In Lieu ... ... ... ... ..... ed, nor on the basis of any agreement or understanding, cannot be stated to be income. The payment is also voluntary on the part of MR. It is a personal payment. It cannot therefore be characterised as income the application of the provisions of section 56 is, therefore, ruled out. 16. In Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT 1965 57 ITR 532 the Supreme Court held that it is for the Revenue to prove that a particular receipt is taxable as income . In the present case, no case has been made out by the revenue for bringing the receipt of pound 35,000 by the assessee to tax either as salary or as income from other sources in the assessment of the assessee. 17. In the view we have taken, we have not considered it necessary to deal with the alternative submission of the assessee that even if the amount is held taxable, it is only in the assessment year 1985-86 and not in the assessment year 1984-85. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal
-
1992 (3) TMI 118 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
... ...
... ... ..... me Court in Tatagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Their workmen (1959) Suppl. 2 SCR 1012 held that the payment of incentive wages is really an addition to wages and that it is an incentive to higher production. It was held to be an extra emoluments for extra efforts put in by the workmen over and above standard that may be fixed. Following the decisions of the Tribunal relied on by the assessee and cited and on the footing that these payments are part of wages and cannot be treated as bonus falling within the Payment of Bonus Act, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this point and dismiss the departmental appeal. While doing so we also take note of the fact that the Department itself has no objection to allowing the incentive wages paid by the assessee right from the inception of the incentive scheme and also in the assessment year subsequent to the assessment year under appeal. 22. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 117 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Natural Justice, Rectification Of Mistakes, Show-cause Notice, Tribunal's Order ... ... ... ... ..... e evidence on record to prima facie establish that there has been non-service of hearing/show-cause notice on the petitioner-company by the CIT. What the petitioner-company now wants through this petition is to review our order dated 22-1-1992 and it is unfortunate for the assessee that we do not possess such power under any provision of the Income-tax Act nor we can derive such power by virtue of any authoritative judgment of Supreme Court or any High Court. The two judgments of the Allahabad High Court cited before us by the counsel for the petitioner-company do not help the case of the assessee as they are distinguishable. We, therefore, refrain from making any discussion on those two judgments. In our opinion, therefore, there is no mistake apparent on record which can be rectified or amended under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as prayed for by the petitioner-company in the present application. 10. In the result, the misc. application is, therefore, dismissed
-
1992 (3) TMI 116 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Assessment Proceedings, Debt Owed, Interest Payable By Assessee, Net Wealth, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1992 (3) TMI 115 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... g profit. We do not think that it requires the presence of a receipt on the credit side to justify the deduction of an expense made on the debit side. In our view, therefore, the assessee, irrespective of the motive is entitled to claim deduction of the interest of Rs. 62,819 from the dividend income in respect of other companies under the head income from other sources though the assessee has not earned any dividend income from M/s Universal Paper Mills Ltd. The view which we have taken is not only justified by the language employed in s. 57(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 but also is in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court and that of the Calcutta High Court which have been cited and relied upon by the assessee s counsel. 6. We, therefore, direct the AO to deduct the sum of Rs. 62,819 from out of the dividend income declared by the assessee from other companies for computing the income under the head Income from other Sources. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 114 - ITAT CALCUTTA
Change In Constitution Of Firm, Partnership Deed, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... rtmental authorities. In the light of the above materials, I respectfully follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and of Madras and A.P. High Courts referred to above and hold that it is a case of succession of the old firm of four partners by the new firm of three partners and that the provisions of section 188 alone would be applicable to the facts of the present case and that the Income-tax Officers had rightly accepted the two separate returns of income filed by the two firms and made separate assessments in respect of the same. Consequently, I hold that the Commissioner was not justified in his conclusion that the said assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. I, therefore, cancel the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act and restore the separate assessments made on the two firms separately by the two Income-tax Officers on the basis of the separate returns filed by them. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1992 (3) TMI 113 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Bona Fide, In Part, Same Business, Short-term Capital Loss ... ... ... ... ..... elf-suffered loss for which no claim in tax matters can validly be made. As already stated, the transaction of sale was far from being bona fide. It was essentially a sham and colourable transaction having been entered into noting business interest and, therefore, any loss resulting therefrom cannot be otherwise than fictitious one. This is a fit case where the corporate veil will have to be pierced. As a result of the alleged transfer the asset in question has, in fact, remained within the family and not left its precincts. The family, without parting with the asset, under the garb of alleged transfer, is trying to claim capital loss, which is obviously not there. Moreover, such loss, if any, is clearly is a self inflicted and self suffered one and, therefore, cannot be allowed in a tax assessment. The two revenue authorities were, therefore, fully justified in disallowing this claim of the assessee. 7 to 12. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1992 (3) TMI 112 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... Act in respect of profits and gains arising out of the construction of entire building as such. 21. Since the extent of manufacture or production of frames, doors and windows, as well as of cement concrete slabs and other allied articles, which are used in the building construction activity could not be readily furnished by the assessee, when called for during the course of hearing, we would set aside the orders of the IT authorities on this issue and restore the case once more to the file of the ITO, with a direction to grant deduction under section 80-I of the Act with reference to profits and gains attributable to the manufacture and production of frames, doors and windows, as well as cement concrete slabs and other allied articles, which are used in the building construction activity and modify the assessments accordingly, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assesses in this regard. 22. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 110 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Assessing Officer, Secret Commission ... ... ... ... ..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12. Looking to the figures of profits, we are of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly observed that the quantum of secret commission has become quite excessive. We have also noticed that for assessment year 1983-84 the CIT has set aside the assessment order under section 263 on the ground that the Assessing Officer wrongly allowed payment of secret commission without proper verification. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order under section 263. However, the fact remains that the extent of secret commission allowed by the Assessing Officer is not acceptable to the CIT. Looking to the past history and the above data we are of the opinion that the secret commission should be disallowed to the extent of 50 per cent of the claim and we direct accordingly. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed in part. 13. to 24. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1992 (3) TMI 109 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Bona Fide, Earlier Decision, Res Judicata, Tax Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... rovisions and figures of depreciation under section 32(1) and 35 deductions from book profits after add back of book depreciation. Appellant also argues that profits of other units are sufficient to absorb claim under section 32-AB and it should not be deducted from profits of the new unit. In my view, there is no warrant to justify such distinction. Proportionate deduction of 32-AB from profits of new unit is perfectly justified. There is no sequence given in the Act for first absorbing 32-AB claim against profits of old units and then deduct from new unit profits. In absence of such priority/sequence, proportionate deduction is perfectly rational. We find that the directions already issued by the learned CIT(A) are appropriate and do not call for any interference on our part. Subject to these directions,we endorse this part of the order of the learned CIT(A) and reject this ground of the appeal. 18. In the result, this appeal partly succeeds and shall stand allowed as above
-
1992 (3) TMI 108 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... g with this source it would make no difference to the issue that the investments indirectly held carrying on the business of the assessee . We are afraid, we are not in a position to subscribe to this view of the Commissioner. Firstly the clauses (a) and (d) of sub-section (2) of section 80P are not mutually exclusive. Secondly since they are a piece of beneficial legislation, they will have to be interpreted in a manner as to substantially advance the object and policy under lying this part of the enactment. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the position of law as discussed above, we hold that the Commissioner was not justified in the present case in proceeding under section 263 and passing the impugned order. That order is thus liable to be quashed. We, therefore, allow these appeals and vacate the impugned order of the Commissioner and restore the assessment orders passed for the two assessment years under appeal. The appeals are allowed accordingly
............
|
