|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 286 Records
-
1994 (9) TMI 126 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... etter dt. 27th Nov., 1981. The ITO also would appear to have instructed himself on the true import of the conveyance deed which had escaped his notice by oversight in the original assessment. As a consequence, the reassessment proceedings have been initiated by the ITO on 6th Aug., 1983, followed up with a notice dt. 14th Sept., 1983. Thus, the reassessment proceedings were not on account of the default committed by the appellant company but as a result of certain information coming to the possession of the ITO and, therefore, it would fall under s. 147(b) of the IT Act. But, action under s. 147(b) cannot be initiated as the limitation for such action had already expired. In the result, we hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the ITO fail. 9. Shri Arumugham, the learned Chartered Accountant, did not address any argument on the merit of the additions and disallowances and, therefore, we refrain from going into the same. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 125 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... vested in February, 1986 was sold by the assessee only in December, 1986 and the crop harvested in February, 1987 was sold somewhat early in September, 1987 since the assessee was in urgent need of funds. Admittedly, the assessee does not have any bills in support of his claim of such pepper sales. In the absence of such evidence, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee s claim only to the extent of Rs. 30,000. The balance amount was added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) granted a further relief of Rs. 30,000. Thus, the assessee got altogether a relief of Rs. 60,000 in this regard. Being not satisfied, the assessee is in appeal. 16. We have heard rival submissions. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this point. He has given further relief of Rs. 30,000. There is no other evidence on record to take a view different from that taken by the lower authorities on this point. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1994 (9) TMI 124 - ITAT COCHIN
Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... the income derived from the sale of produce after such operations would not fall for consideration as agricultural income. Thus, if a primary produce has been subjected to certain operations or processes even for the purpose of rendering it fit for market, it can no longer retain its identity in its natural form and hence a special provision was found necessary in defining the agricultural income. Extending the same logic, we hold that if the tendu leaves were auctioned in as is, where is condition, it will be a forest produce. If, on the other hand, it has been processed and then auctioned, it can no longer be considered as a forest produce but only as a commercial commodity. There is no dispute before us that the assessee in this case has purchased processed tendu leaves from the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. Therefore, we hold that the provisions of section 44AC of the Income-tax Act are not attracted to the assessee s case. The appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed
-
1994 (9) TMI 123 - ITAT COCHIN
Cost Of Acquisition, Income Tax Rules, Mercantile System, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... n of Rs. 14,96,000 and the manner in which the consideration was to be disbursed was also specified in the agreement. Thus the liability for a sum of Rs. 14,96,000 arose under the contract upon its execution, only the payment of part of the consideration was deferred to future dates, that does not mean the liability for the agreed consideration of Rs. 14,96,000 did not crystallise on the date of the agreement. Thus the liability for the expenses has been actually incurred. The Madras High Court in the case of Pereira and Roche v. CIT 1966 61 ITR 371 held that the expression actually paid or paid is not to be understood in a physical sense, but in the sense that the expenditure is actually incurred . For these reasons, we uphold the contention of Shri Kesavdas that under rule 9B(1) read with Explanation thereto the assessee is entitled to the deduction of full cost of acquisition incurred by it under the agreement. The order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal is allowed
-
1994 (9) TMI 122 - ITAT COCHIN
Annual Letting Value, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee-company were in lieu of rent or by way of addition to rent. In the circumstances, we dismiss this ground of appeal. 12. There are other grounds in the assessee s appeal as well as in the revenue s appeal against the levy of interest and cancellation of interest. The only income on which the company has been assessed is the income from house property as if it is the owner of the house property consisting of flats, comprised in the multi-storeyed building. As we have held that the charge under section 23 failed against the assessee-company, for the reasons stated in para. 7 above, the taxable income of the assessee-company will be nil and, therefore, the levy of interest is not justified. The assessee s ground of appeal against the levy of interest is upheld. The revenue s appeal against the cancellation of interest levied under section 217 is dismissed as devoid of substance. 13. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed and the department s appeals are dismissed
-
1994 (9) TMI 121 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... learned counsel could not enlighten us on this issue. In the absence of actual details of payments made by the assessee, the Revenue authorities were justified in estimating the income from this source. In our opinion, the estimate of the learned CIT(A) is quite reasonable and is hereby accepted. We accordingly reject the Revenue s ground as well as the ground in the assessee s cross-objection. 11. The only other ground in the assessee s cross-objection is regarding the charging of interest under s. 217. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel submitted that the assessee would be satisfied if consequential relief was allowed to it on the basis of income finally determined. This request is quite reasonable. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to charge interest under s. 217, if chargeable in law, on the income determined as a result of this order of ours. 12. In the result, while the Revenue s appeal is dismissed, the assessee s cross objection is partly allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 120 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Firm Registration, In Part, One Partner, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... rules even if it was held that division or crediting of profits was basic to the allowance of continuation to the registration. We hold and direct accordingly. We also do not accept the proposition enunciated by the revenue authorities that a mere excessive withdrawal by one partner would tantamount to withdrawing the profits over and above the ratio stipulated in the partnership deed. The withdrawals of moneys from the accounts would not necessarily mean withdrawals of profits. Moreover, whether a particular withdrawal is ledgerised or not may speak volumes for the improper maintenance of accounts but that would not be a good enough reason for disallowing continuation of registration. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into account, we hold that the assessee was entitled to continuation of registration, particularly when in the immediately preceding and succeeding years the assessee had been accorded the status of a registered firm. 8. Appeal stands allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 119 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Additional Evidence, Assessing Officer, Criminal Court, Criminal Proceedings, Criminal Prosecution, Penalty For Concealment
-
1994 (9) TMI 118 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Proceedings, Deduction Of Interest, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings, Unexplained Investments
-
1994 (9) TMI 117 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Indian Company, Mineral Oil, Permanent Establishment, Profits And Gains
-
1994 (9) TMI 116 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Assessment Year, Business Loss, State Electricity Board, Waiver Or Reduction ... ... ... ... ..... irement under section 115J for exclusion of provision to meet an ascertained liability even if it related to an earlier year. Therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude this liability from the computation of book profits under section 115J. This will dispose of the revenue s appeal In IT Appeal. No. 1900/B/94 and the assessee s ground Nos. 1 to 3. The revenue s appeal is therefore, dismissed. Since the order was rectified by the CIT(A) the ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the assessee s appeal become infructuous. The ground Nos. 12 to 14 of assessee s appeals are also rejected in view of our finding that liability had already accrued on month to month basis in the relevant years, i.e., in the years the bills were raised by MSEB for the first time. Hence, the same cannot be deducted in computation of income under section 28 for assessment year 1990-91. 15. to 22. These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.
-
1994 (9) TMI 115 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Assessment Year, Expenditure Incurred ... ... ... ... ..... ting investigation relating to his eyes cannot be allowed as business expenditure under section 37(1). Hence this ground of the assessee is dismissed. 5. The second ground relates to disallowance of interest on the amount borrowed by the assessee. The CIT(A) has observed that money was borrowed for making payment to the counsel as fee on account of the client of the assessee M/s Hira Zaveri Uma Investment Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued that this payment was made for the purpose of profession carried on by the assessee and no other purpose. On the other hand, the learned departmental representative relied on the order of the CIT(A). (ii) After hearing both the parties we are of the view that the borrowed money was utilised for the purpose of the profession carried on by the assessee and therefore, the interest on such borrowings has to be allowed. The addition of Rs. 4,030 made on this count is deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 114 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... e have already held that there is no source at all and hence, the question of taxing the receipt as income from other sources does not arise. 27. We, accordingly, direct that as the receipt of Rs. 10,00,000 by the Society from Mr. Parmeshwar Mittal is not an income, it be deleted from the total income of the assessee. 28. The second ground pertains to the taxability of non-occupancy charges, transfer fee and premium on transfer. All these charges are paid by the members to the Society which in turn utilises these receipts for the benefit of members only. The Society being a mutual concern, these amounts will not be liable to tax. This view has been affirmed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 1993 204 ITR 662. 29. We, therefore, direct that receipts on account of non-occupancy charges, transfer fees and premium on transfer be deleted from total income on the principle of mutuality. 30. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 113 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Year, Computation Of Capital, Secret Profits ... ... ... ... ..... declared net profit as per the books of the company. Nobody knows what the company should have done about the secret profits kept outside the books. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the three decisions as mentioned above is of no use to the assessee inasmuch as none of the decisions support the assessee s contention that even secret profits kept outside books will also have to be treated as reserve without any authorisation by the directors of the company. Finally therefore, we are of the view that the arguments put forward by the assessee in this case do not at all hold good and the secret profits of the company kept outside its books can in no way be considered as part of the reserves of the company for the purpose of computation of capital base for surtax purposes. We, therefore, uphold the action of the CIT(A) in refusing to entertain the claim of the assessee in this regard. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 112 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Assessee's Appeal, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Late Filing ... ... ... ... ..... ental authorities ought to have charged interest under section 139(8) upto the date of filing of the returns and further interest should be charged only if the assessed tax is more than the tax paid under section 140A on 25-6-1990. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest chargeable under section 139(8) as under --- (i) Interest should be calculated on the shortfall between the assessed tax and the tax paid under section 210 or TDS, if any from the date immediately following the due date of filing the returns upto the date of payment of tax under section 140A i.e., 25-6-1990. (ii) Further interest, if any, should be calculated on the shortfall between the assessed tax and the total tax paid for the period from the date beyond the date of payment of tax under section 140A i.e., 25-6-1990 in this case, upto the date of regular assessment. 10. In the result all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in terms of the above order.
-
1994 (9) TMI 111 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... th and name of person who prepared it is also not disclosed. In the absence of these vital facts, this Chatti Vahi in respect of Gopaldas will not be helpful. 31. On the basis of what had been discussed above we are of the opinion that The learned ITO appreciated the facts and circumstances correctly and arrived at the correct conclusion holding that date of birth of Gopaldas was 1st Jan., 1962 as is shown in the school records and in other document and being treated by father of Gopaldas Bansilal as such. The evidence from the side of the assessee was manipulated and unbelieving one. The learned first appellate authority wrongly relied on that evidence. Once date of birth of Gopaldas is 1st Jan., 1962, admittedly the constitution of the firm on 12th Nov., 1977 was not valid. The assessee was not entitled to get registration in the asst. yr. 1979-80 and subsequent years on this very ground. Accordingly the appeals of the Revenue are allowed and the order of ITO is confirmed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 110 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... been allowed by the ITO and there was no justification for refusing the amount for four months the new unit worked out. We do not find any ground to interfere in the said finding and accordingly this ground of the Revenue fails. 14. Ground No. 2 of ITA No. 4863/Ahd.1989 in asst. yr. 1987-88 The ITO disallowed the amount of excess bonus paid to some of the employees for the year ending 31st Dec., 1986. This was deleted by the CIT(A). The case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand and Sons vs. CIT 1977 CTR (SC) 246 (1977) 108 ITR 358 (SC), which is being followed by ITA Ahmedabad Bench and copy of judgment in ITA No. 2151/Ahd/88 in the case of Variety Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. ITO is placed before us. The view taken by CIT(A) is fully covered by the above referred decision and there is no need for interference. 15. The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee are partly allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 109 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Assessing Officer, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, Foreign Technician, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... of interpretation of statutes that the expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the Legislature. While interpreting a statute the court cannot ignore its aim and object. The object of the enactment of section 10(6)(vii) is to attract and make available to indigenous Industries the special knowledge and experience of foreign technicians. The interpretation put by the learned Assessing Officer runs contrary to the avowed alms and objects of the Legislature and the intent of the Legislature behind this legislation, which cannot be upheld. We accordingly uphold the finding of the CIT (Appeals). No part of the remuneration received by the assessees for their 72 days stay in India is taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act. This disposes of the first three grounds raised by the Revenue. 6. to 11. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1994 (9) TMI 108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... on under s. 80G, we direct the Assessing Officer to take the evidence on record which the assessee may intend to produce to claim the benefit of s. 80G of the Act and process the claim accordingly. We order and direct accordingly. 17. Regarding the ground of charging of interest under s. 215 is concerned, we direct the Assessing Officer not to charge or levy interest under s. 215 in the fresh assessment while giving effect to our direction given in this order without hearing the assessee and giving him an opportunity to explain as to why the assessee is not liable for interest under the provisions of s. 215/217 of the Act. We order and direct accordingly. 18. The assessee s authorised representative did not press for any decision on the ground taken in this appeal regarding initiation of penal proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(c) of the Act. Hence, no decision is given. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated and directions given above.
-
1994 (9) TMI 107 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Assessing Officer, Deduction In Respect, Interest Payable, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... Shri P. N. Bhagwati. We are in agreement with it and that act of Assessing Officer deleting the disallowance earlier made does not make the issue debatable as the matter stands finally decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court. There was no scope for the Assessing Officer to decide the matter in favour of the assessee in the just preceding year and if he did, the same does not help the assessee because that act of the Assessing Officer alone will be enough to make a matter debatable as there is no contrary view placed before us by the learned counsel for the assessee which may be in any way going against the view of the Supreme Court laid down in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. In the absence of such, the matter was not debatable and action of the ITO making adjustments under section 143(1)(a) was well within his right and the same has rightly been disallowed. Hence no force In this plea also. 17. The result is that the appeal of the assessee has no force and is dismissed.
............
|
