|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 111 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... it has been laid down that what is contemplated by s. 271(1) is that the Assessing Officer should have been satisfied in the course of assessment proceedings regarding matters mentioned in cls. (a) (b) and/or (c) of that sub-section. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that it is the satisfaction and not issue or service of notice in the course of assessment proceedings which invest the Assessing Officer with the jurisdiction to levy penalty. Also see CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC). This apart even the show-cause notice does not specify the default the assessee is charged with. Further, it has also not been established by the Revenue that the assessee furnished estimates of advance tax which he knew or had reasons to believe to be untrue. Therefore, we find merit in the submissions made by the learned authorised representative for the assessee and cancel the penalty levied. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. M.A. BAKSHI, J.M. I agree with the conclusion.
-
1994 (4) TMI 110 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... ought on record. It has not been denied that Smt. Vimlesh Singla visited her parents atLudhianawhere her mother gave a sum of Rs. 10,000 to her as a gift. In her statement during the course of search no direct enquiry was made towards the purchase of the jewellery. On the other hand, the fact remains that despite the request made by the assessee, the Commission was not issued to the Assessing Officer at Bombay for recording the statement of Smt. Naraino Devi who is both income-tax as well as wealth-tax assessee. The purchase of jewellery atLudhianafurther lends support that the same was made by Smt. Vimlesh Singla and not by the assessee. In the circumstances, the addition if at all warranted should have been made her hands and not that of the assessee against whom no evidence has been brought on record to prove that jewellery belongs to him. Under these circumstances we uphold the relief allowed by the CIT(A). 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed hereby.
-
1994 (4) TMI 109 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... wan Dass Des Raj, Katra Subhash, Ch. Chowk, Delhi, vs. ITO, ward 5(1), New Delhi and submitted that on a set of identical facts and under similar circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to delete the addition made by the Assessing officer. 3. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the relevant record. We notice that the Assessing Officer has not found any unaccounted purchase, sales and also did not find any incriminating material at the time of survey so as to reject the book results disclosed by the assessee. We, therefore, agree with the submissions made by Shri Sampath, the learned authorised representative for the assessee that the method adopted for estimating the stock at the time of survey was erroneous and, therefore, addition made is held unjustified. We also respectfully follow the reasoning of the Tribunal given in its order. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 108 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... t the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Cell was fully justified and after having made the reference, the Assessing Officer was bound to accept the valuation so worked out. 7. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the relevant record. There is no dispute about facts, i.e., the property is residential and wholly self-occupied. Therefore, there is no escape from applicability of r. 1BB on the part of the Assessing Officer. It was his duty to determine the valuation under r. 1BB and having not done so, the reference made by him to Valuation Cell is not competent. We, therefore, deem it necessary to remit the issue to the Assessing Officer with the directions to determine the valuation of the impugned property in accordance with r. 1BB. In case, the same works out at less than the value disclosed by the assessee, the excess declared is to be ignored. With these directions, the assessee s appeal is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 107 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... IT. 5. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the relevant record. We are of the view that the learned CIT was not justified in invoking his revisionary powers under s. 263 in holding that the assessee was not a dealer in shares when the record of the assessee as also the treatment given by the Revenue clearly accepts the position of the assessee year in and year out that it is engaged in purchase and sale of shares. We note that this is also admitted by the learned CIT who, however, took the view that the shares of TICIL represented investment and not stock-in-trade. We do not find any material whatsoever on record justifying the view taken by the learned CIT. We, therefore, accept the submission made by Shri O.P. Sapra the learned authorised representative for the assessee and vacate the order passed by the learned CIT under s. 263 thus restoring the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer on30th Dec., 1987. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 106 - ITAT DELHI-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Excise Duty, Investment Allowance, New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Office Appliance
-
1994 (4) TMI 105 - ITAT DELHI-B
Assessment Year, Municipal Corporation, Raw Material ... ... ... ... ..... e Explanation added to section 43B supplied an omission and were intended to remove an impossibility of performance and, therefore, cannot be said to be prospective in operation. 20. It Is thus clear that date mentioned by the Legislature for operation of a particular provision is not conclusive. Explanatory and declaratory provisions are always retrospective In operation. The amendment was made in the explanation and has to be taken as clarificatory-explanatory in character only. From any angle, we see no scope to deny relief claimed by the assessee. Having regard to the above discussion, we, direct the Assessing Officer to allow relief to the assessee as claimed in both the assessment years. Consequently orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1989-90 is confirmed and for the assessment year 1990-91 is set aside. 21. In the result, the assessee s appeal for the assessment year 1990-91 is allowed, whereas the revenue s appeal for the assessment year 1989-90 is rejected.
-
1994 (4) TMI 104 - ITAT DELHI
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Original Assessment, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... raised under section 263 of the Act. The said controversy in view of cancellation of order under section 263 by the Tribunal, has no relevancy and was not considered. The ITO lacked power to make fresh assessment and the CIT(A) and the Tribunal merely recorded finding to the above effect. No question of allowability of investment allowance with reference to decision in the case of CIT v. N.C. Buddhiraja and Co. was considered and discussed. There was no occasion to consider above decision but still the question has been decorating with the decision. In our considered view, lot of good time has been wasted in purposeless litigation which could have been utilised to do constructive things. Exercising judicial constraints which were required to exercise, we say no more. With the aforesaid remarks, we dismiss these reference applications as not arising out of the order of the Tribunal. These applications are also out of time. 6. In the result, reference applications are rejected
-
1994 (4) TMI 103 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... the business,one had to retain fire extinguishers and time office equipment and that they were not items like plant and machinery which would come within the purview of s. 32A. It will be seen that the facts in the case decided by the Calcutta High Court were distinguishable. In the assessee s case, we find that crane was a plant or machinery which had been used for purposes of business and loading and unloading activities were a part and parcel of the manufacturing process. Simply because the machinery in question was partly used for purposes of loading and unloading activities of outsiders, would not debar the assessee from claiming investment allowance under s. 32A of the Act. 9. Taking a total view of the matter, we hold that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the purchase of tractor-mounted crane valued at Rs. 5,95,220. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the investment allowance on the same as per law. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ation of properties has been made as stipulated in s. 7 of the WT Act. In our opinion, r. 1BB is mandatory. The learned Departmental Representative has not pointed out as to why the exceptions contained in sub-cl. (5) of r. 1BB should take the case out of the ambit of the said rule. The learned CWT(A) has also gone into this aspect of the matter and come to the conclusion that the case falls within the ambit of r. 1BB of the Rules and that the exceptions do not apply in the instant case. We accept his reasoning and conclusion. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hira Lal Mehra has held that r. 1BB was in force for the period 1st April, 1979 to 31st March, 1989. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania has held that r. 1D is mandatory. On the same analogy, we hold that r. 1BB is also mandatory and since the rule was in operation for asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1984-85, we uphold the order of the learned CWT(A). 7. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 101 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... Court. Our attention has also been drawn to CWT vs. Hiralal Mehra (1993) 114 CTR (P and H) 249 (1994) 205 ITR 122 (P and H), wherein r. 1BB has been held to be applicable upto 31st March, 1989. Rule 1BB was omitted by the WT (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989, w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Therefore, for assessment years under consideration, r. 1BB shall be applicable. 3. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel and are of the view that r. 1BB has to be followed in the assessee s case for all the four years under consideration. The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court on the applicability of r. 1D is very authoritative on the question of applicability of r. 1D and r. 1BB also stands on the same footing as r. 1D. Therefore, we hold that r. 1BB is applicable in the assessee s case for valuation of self-occupied property. The WTO is directed to fix the value of the self-occupied property in accordance with r. 1BB. 4. In the result, all the appeals succeed and are allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 100 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment Year, Mercantile System, Sales Tax, Supreme Court, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... s compilation), wherein the word created has been mentioned, would not change the nature of the liability. We find that the order of the apex court for stay of the demand could also not help the assessee because it did not wipe out the demand but only suspended it. It was the duty of the assessee to claim deduction on the basis of the amendment of law, though he could have withheld the payment till final adjudication of the case by the Supreme Court. As we have already noted, the writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed in the month of April 1980. The stay was vacated by the Supreme Court in the month of November 1982. We, therefore, find that the demand, which had arisen by virtue of the amending law, stood against the assessee and its retrospective effect has to be kept in mind for the purpose of accrual of liability. Therefore, we find no force in ground No. 1, which stands rejected. 7 to 10. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1994 (4) TMI 99 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Expenditure Incurred, Purchase Price, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1994 (4) TMI 98 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ng to the entire facts of the case and the case law, we are of the view that after the omission of item No. 20 from the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act, washing soap came out of the said Schedule. The word soap occurring in Item No. 4 remained there but it was not washing soap and only soap used for cleaning human body. We find that the rule of ejusdem generis is attracted and, therefore, we have looked at the word soap keeping in view the preceding three articles which find their mention in item No. 4. It is thus clear that the articles in item No. 4 are such articles which are needed for cleaning the human body including teeth. In this view of the matter, we find that ground No. 3 in assessee s appeal succeeds and ground No. 5 in revenue s appeal fails. We, therefore, direct that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the machines purchased for the manufacture of washing soap. 21 to 34. These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues.
-
1994 (4) TMI 97 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Assessment Year, Investment Allowance, Raw Material ... ... ... ... ..... Court. In this view of the matter, therefore, we uphold the findings and conclusions and the decision of the authorities that the assessee is not eligible for investment allowance. 8. The other ground, which relates to assessment year 1990-91 alone, pertains to claim of stamp duty and filing fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increasing the authorised capital. The Assessing Officer disallowed stamp duty of Rs. 40,000 and filing fees paid to Registrar of Companies of Rs. 5,250 as capital expenditure. On appeal, the CIT(A), relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. CIT 1988 169 ITR 516 and several other decisions, confirmed the addition. 9. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative have been duly heard. Respectfully following the judgment of the Bombay High Court, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this point. 10. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 96 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Assessment Year, Carrying On Business, Interest On Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ished on facts. That decision went in favour of the revenue only because the exemption was claimed by the assessee in that case under a Notification issued under section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act and under the terms of this Notification, exemption was made inapplicable to interests received from Government securities. It was in those circumstances the Supreme Court had no difficulty in holding that the income by way of interest received from Government securities would not be exempt under the said Notification. There is also force in the other arguments of the assessee, namely, that the interest received by the assessee was mostly by way of interest deposits from co-operative banks which is exempt under clause (d) of section 80P(2) of the Act. The exercise undertaken by the revenue, it would appear in the circumstances, has become futile and we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee for relief as claimed. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 95 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Additional Tax, Assessment Year, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Commercial Profit, Distributable Income, Undistributed Profits
-
1994 (4) TMI 94 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... setting aside an order passed by the Assessing Officer, which is considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, if we accept the submissions of Sh. Kanwal, Ld. DR that it was only an intimation then section 263 could not be invoked by the CIT and if it is in fact an order passed under section 143(1) it has to be served on the party concerned to become effective and since admittedly it was not served on the assessee, the action of the CIT in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 was not in accordance with law as per the ratio of decision of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Jijeebai Shinde. 7. In this view of the matter, we will hold that the order passed by the Commissioner was without jurisdiction and accordingly invalid. 8. Since we have cancelled the order of the CIT on legal ground, it is not considered necessary to adjudicate on the merits of the case. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 93 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... IT and WT assessments of last 8 years and current year are completed. If any assets, are pending, please give details. From the above, it will be seen that even the ITO was considering the status of the assessee as HUF and the property in question according to the ITO, while making inquiries, was that of the HUF. Finally at the time of assessment proceedings, the WTO negatived the assessee s claim and accordingly taxed the value of the said property in the hands of the assessee. Merely because the assessee s appeals have been lost in the quantum cases, is no ground for levying penalty because as stated above penalty proceedings are distinct and different from assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances we hold that there was no conscious concealment on the part of the assessee and for a bona fide lapse on the part of a respectable lady aged over 85 years, she cannot be penalised. We accordingly uphold the findings of the CIT(A). 7. The Departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 92 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... lted in a loss penalty under section 271(1)(c) would not be leviable even on the basis of Explanation 4 below section 271(1) as inserted w.e.f. 1-4-1976. 10. We may mention here that the Hon ble Supreme Court has specifically mentioned in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 177/ 1973 88 ITR 192 (SC) that if the Court finds that the language of a taxing provision is ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then the Court has to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so where the provision relates to the imposition of penalty. We respectfully follow those decisions which have taken the view in favour of the assessee on this point and hold that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable in the case of the assessee because after giving effect to the order of the Tribunal there is a loss of Rs. 46,912. We accordingly uphold the view of the CIT(A) on this technical point. 11. In the result the appeal is allowed in part pro tanto.
............
|
