|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 258 Records
-
1995 (8) TMI 98 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Advance Payment, Indian Company, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... of the assessee is accordingly rejected. 25. The department s appeal for asst. years 1985-86 to 1987-88 have to be allowed on another ground as well. In these years, the CIT has given a specific direction to assess 100 income and, therefore, the Assessing Officer simply carried out his directions and was not making any assessment afresh on the application of his own mind and judgment. Therefore, the assessee could not have any possible grievance unless and until the Assessing Officer had made any error or mistake in carrying out the directions. The assessee s grievance could be and was against the order of the CIT which we have already upheld to have been made in accordance with law. 26. In the result, the appeals by the department, ie., I.T.A. Nos. 1328, 1329, 1330/Hyd./1992, 127/Hyd./1991, 1663/Hyd./1993, 1331/Hyd./1992 and 1611/Hyd./1992, 352, 1565, 1287 and 1566/Hyd./1992, are allowed and the appeals by the assessee, i.e., I.T.A. Nos. 1150 to 1152/Hyd./1990, are dismissed
-
1995 (8) TMI 97 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Advance Tax, Assessment Year, Default In Payment, Earning Income, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... t for failure to do so? On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, no interest can, therefore, be levied on the assessee in this case. The CIT (Appeals) was justified in deleting the same and we accordingly uphold his order. 9. The learned departmental representative submitted that no appeal is maintainable against charge of interest under section 234C. We do not find any force in this contention in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd v. CIT 1986 160 ITR 961, as the assessee denies its liability and also since the interest charged under section 234C is a part of the assessment. 10. The cross objection is filed late by 146 days. No petition for condonation thereof has been filed by the assessee. Even otherwise, it was filed only to support the order of the CIT (Appeals). In these circumstances, the cross objection is rejected. 11. In the result, the appeal and the cross objection are dismissed
-
1995 (8) TMI 96 - ITAT DELHI-D
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Liquor Business, Revenue Expenditure
-
1995 (8) TMI 95 - ITAT DELHI-C
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... ve finding on above aspect as relevant material has not been placed before us. The exercise involved is also beyond purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The learned A.O. could undertake above exercise by issuing notices under the relevant statutory provision. Without hearing the assessee, the adjustments in question could not be made under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, addition of Rs. 6,20,000 for the purpose of section 115J of Income-tax Act without hearing the assessee and without examining all relevant material and in the manner made, has to be held to be without jurisdiction. So, it is a mistake apparent from record liable to be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to carry the necessary rectification. This order, however, will not prejudice the revenue to take such steps as are otherwise authorised under the law. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms stated above.
-
1995 (8) TMI 94 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... e no real grievance of the assessee against the order of the CIT(A). We may, however, clarify that should the AO come to a conclusion that the gift relates to the year under appeal and not to asst. yr. 1984-85, he shall keep in mind the decision of the Tribunal in the related case of Smt. Shama Suri, G. Sagar and G. Sagar Suri and Sons ITA No. 3089/Del/1987, 794/Del/1986, 6738/Del/1985 dt.28th Sept., 1990in deciding the issue afresh. We, therefore, decline to interfere. 12. Assessee s appeal for asst. yr. 1984-85 is accordingly dismissed. 13. For asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, the only issue involved is relating to the disallowance of expenses on account of advertisement and publicity, service charges and commission. We have already decided similar issue for asst. yr. 1984-85 as above. For the same reasons, the disallowance is confirmed. 14. Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. The appeals of the assessee, subject to the observations in para 11, are also dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 93 - ITAT DELHI-A
Assessment Year, Rental Income ... ... ... ... ..... d action of the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. There is no substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Revenue. The time limit mentioned in section 149 is applicable only to cases where a valid notice is issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act and proviso to section 147 is not applicable. Likewise, any sanction granted in a mechanical manner under section 151 of the Act shall not make a notice under section 147/148 valid which is not otherwise so. In the present case, no attempt was made to bring the case within four corners of proviso to section 147. Thus condition precedents to assume jurisdiction are not satisfied. The bar contained in the proviso providing, no action shall be taken under this section is not lifted. The notice has to be declared as invalid and without jurisdiction. For the reasons given above and for the reasons recorded by learned Accountant Member, I agree with the order proposed by learned Accountant Member.
-
1995 (8) TMI 92 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ere bogus or that the entries have been manipulated by the assessee firm. A mere surrender of Rs. 9 lacs in the revised return without any adverse evidence against the assessee should not be treated as a spring-board for imposing a penalty. We are clear in our mind that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was not justified and that the learned CIT(A) was within his rights to delete the penalty. 19. As regards the assessee s cross-objection, it is late by 5 days. The delay of each day has to be explained by the assessee which has not been explained before us. The cross-objection is thus not maintainable and hence not competent. Even otherwise since the cross-objection is formal and supporting the impugned order which we have already upheld, it has become superfluous and is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. We hold accordingly. 20. In the result, both the appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 91 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... oss or profit rate of 8.16 for the entire year so as to arrive at the figure of the closing stock on month to month basis. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee did not bring the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bhalla Bros. to the notice of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Loomba Manufacturing Syndicate. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bhalla Bros. has held that even if in the mid year negative stock was found on a particular date, no addition was warranted. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the assessee also supports the assessee s case. The case law cited by the Revenue, as pointed out above, is in respect of pledging and not hypothecation. 11. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,72,518 which is hereby deleted. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 90 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Family Arrangement, Family Property, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Sole Surviving Coparcener
-
1995 (8) TMI 89 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Profits And Gains, Purchase And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... me by adopting the rate of 40 in all cases. In that view of the matter, we are unable to agree with the learned CIT(A) that the rate of 40 was a mandatory requirement of law for working out the income in the case of a country liquor trader. 13. Since the ld. counsel for the assessee has stated during the course of hearing that he would not contest the additions made by the Assessing Officer while rejecting the books of account, we do not find it necessary to look into the merits of the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, hold that application of the profit rate of 40 under section 44AC is not appropriate in the light of sub-section (2) of that section as well as in view of the observations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sat Pal and Co. Therefore, in both the appeals, the orders of the CIT(A) are quashed and those of the Assessing Officer are restored. The additions made by the Assessing Officer in both the cases are upheld
-
1995 (8) TMI 88 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Original Assessment, Reference To Valuation Officer, Valuation Report
-
1995 (8) TMI 87 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Assessment Year, Public Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... on identical terms and conditions. Service charges remain as these were prevalent earlier. We do not know why the Assessing Officer concluded that the main activity of the assessee is to sell medicine. On identical facts, it was cognized as a charitable organisation earlier. No other reason is given in the impugned order to support the denial of benefit of section 10(22A) of the Act. The fact that the assessee did not charge the exact amount, or the surplus should be in the peripheri of 2 to 21/2 , cannot stand as a reason for denying the benefit of section 10(22A). In our opinion, the case of the assessee falls within the ken of section 10(22A) of the Act. Therefore, the benefit of section 10(22A) cannot be denied to the assessee. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of the assessee on this count. 19. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to decide the other alternate contentions. 20. In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed
-
1995 (8) TMI 86 - ITAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... aritable or religious trust by the CIT as non-taxable institution, no penalty can be levied for delay in filing the return because there is no involvement of tax in it. He, therefore, argued that the cause shown by the assessee should also be accepted even if it is without evidence. The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the learned CIT(A). 5. I have considered the rival submission, facts and material on record. In my opinion, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the assessees cannot be said to be without any force. In any case the view taken by the learned CIT(A) can also be said to be a view which supports the levy of penalty. But when two views are possible, I am of the opinion that the issue should be decided in favour of the assessee in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products 1973 CTR (SC) 177 (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). I, therefore, cancel the penalties. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 85 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Year, Closing Stock, Foreign Currency, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... er for ascertaining the actual facts about maintenance of accounts relating to purchase of materials at New York, viz., whether at Dollar price or at rupee price and to take appropriate actions thereafter in accordance with the factual findings and our discussions made above. 10. Ground No. 10 relating to quantification of the opening stock was not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Hence, this ground is being dismissed. 11. It has also been conceded by the learned counsel for the assessee that the ground Nos. 11 and 12 relating to sustenance of the interest charged under section 234B and of the additional tax levied under section 143(1A) respectively, are merely consequential in nature and hence, they do not deserve any specific attention. We, therefore, direct that only consequential effects be given with regard to these two grounds. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee may be considered to be only partially allowed to the above-mentioned extent
-
1995 (8) TMI 84 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal in the case of Ilaxi Textiles Industries. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the assessee-firm is entitled to the benefits of Amnesty Scheme of 1985 and accordingly confirm the findings of the CIT(A). 7. The next grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the ITO to modify/waive the interest under s. 215 in the light of the Board s circular in this behalf. This ground is consequential in nature. Since the CIT(A) has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme, 1985, and we have confirmed the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard, the order of charging of interest under s. 215 is liable to be modified/waived in the light of Board s circular in this behalf. Needless to say that the Board s circulars are binding on the IT authorities in view of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jaikishan Gopikishan and Sons. 8. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 83 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Assessment, Additions To Income ... ... ... ... ..... the learned Accountant Member in this regard. 20. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for the final disposal of the appeal in accordance with the opinion of the majority. ORDER Per Shri B. L. Chhibber (Accountant Member) -The learned Vice-President sitting as Third Member by his opinion dated 16-6-1995 has concurred with the views of Accountant Member and in accordance with the majority view, it is held as under (1) The CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,85,003 made on account of unaccounted cash sales. (2) The CIT(A) is not justified in directing to adopt the Gross Profit only on Rs. 2,43,339 being the difference between Rs. 10,85,003 and Rs. 8,41,664. It is held that G.P. rate should be applied on the entire sales of Rs. 10,85,003 which were not recorded in the books of account. The ITO is accordingly directed to apply G.P. rate of 2.36 on the amount of Rs. 10,85,003 and work out the addition. 2. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1995 (8) TMI 82 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... A) and restore that of the AO. The addition of Rs. 25,000 is confirmed. 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the learned counsel for the assessee has supported the order of the CIT(A) with regard to deletion of the following additions. (1) Rs. 14,715 being Free Delivery charges (2) Rs. 17,305 out of conveyance expenses (3) Rs. 17,118 on account of Hamali expenses (4) Rs. 25,000 on account of unexplained cash credit in the name of M/s Kanaiyalal and Co on account of unexplained cash credit in the name of M/s Kanaiyalal and Co It has further been submitted that the CIT(A) has taken half hearted action in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,26,717 on account of empty tins. 18.1 All the issues have been adjudicated by us in the assessee s appeal and the appeal filed by Revenue and no further comments on the above issues are called for. 19. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and the cross objection filed by the assessee is disposed of as indicated above.
-
1995 (8) TMI 81 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... tension of time but he did not do so. The learned counsel for the assessee has rightly pleaded that under such circumstances the assessee has entertained a bona fide belief that extension of time was granted to it from time to time. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel stands supported by various judgments as referred to above. From the papers compiled in paper book, we also find that there was dispute among the partners and consequent upon which the assessee-firm sustained loss and ultimately was dissolved. No doubt at one stage of his submissions the learned counsel of the assessee said that advance tax paid was more than the tax payable as per return but, however, no further material has been made available to see whether it is a case of refund of tax as has been claimed by the assessee. But, of course, on other counts the assessee s case bears merit. The order of the learned CIT(A) is not justified and so we reverse it. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 80 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Assessing Officer ... ... ... ... ..... to be the same. As stated above, SFA had no existence of its own, it was a creation of Shri V.H. Mehta, it was a non-trading association of some prospective buyers whose identity was never disclosed before the ITO, it was admittedly not assessed to tax, it had no business or income of its own and was nothing but a smoke-screen created for the purpose of evading tax. In our opinion, creation by Shri V.H. Mehta of SFA which was nothing but a smoke-screen was a colourable device to evade tax and cannot be part of tax planning as held by the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. and as such the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. is applicable to the facts of the present case. We accordingly reverse the findings of the CIT(A) and hold that the amounts of Rs. 2,01,178 and Rs. 61,053 being interest income are assessable in the hands of the assessee-company. 3. to 8. These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues
-
1995 (8) TMI 79 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Advance Tax, Assessing Officer, Income From Other Sources, Tax Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... only when a return of income is filed and the income in question is not disclosed in such return of income. The default of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or the act of concealment of income can take place only when the disputed amount of income has not been disclosed in the return. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee duly paid advance tax on the amount in question, the said amount of income represented by cash found was also included as assessee s income in the return of income submitted by the assessee. Such a view is clearly supported by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 1. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that no penalty can be validly imposed upon the assessee under the aforestated facts and circumstances. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the said penalty. 19. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
....
|
