|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 332 Records
-
1994 (3) TMI 152 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... come to the conclusion that assessee was not entitled to the deduction on the ground that the audit report had not been filed along with the return of income. This conclusion arrived at without confronting the assessee at the stage of assessment is also unwarranted. Filing of an audit report along with the return of income though statutory is not mandatory but procedural in nature. Therefore, even if the audit report had not been filed along with the return of income assessee should have been allowed an opportunity to file the same at the stage of assessment. This not having been done, Assessing Officer, in our view, committed an error which could be rectified under s. 154 subject to the other conditions required for allowance of deduction under s. 80HHA and s. 80J being satisfied. 10. The Assessing Officer is directed to dispose of the assessee s application under s. 154 afresh as per our directions and in accordance with law. 11. For statistical purposes, appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 151 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... 2) to s. 9(1)(vii) or s. 44D. 15. For purposes of s. 44BB two conditions must be satisfied (a) Assessee must be a non-resident and (b) Assessee must be engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with extraction of mineral oils. A proviso has been added to s. 44BB making an exception in such cases, which fall within s. 42 or s. 44D or s. 115A or s. 293A. Assessee s case as we have held does not fall within s. 44D or within s. 9(1)(vii) Expln. (2). Thus, we have to consider as to whether the conditions for purposes of s. 44BB are satisfied, in this case. The assessee is a non-resident and as we have examined is engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with the drilling operations. We, thus, on consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, are satisfied that the income of the assessee is computable under s. 44BB. We, thus, uphold the view of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the Revenue.
-
1994 (3) TMI 150 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... e disallowance has been made following the past history of the case. The issue is covered by the earlier appellate orders. The Assessing Officer is directed to determine the WDV of the building in the light of these orders and allow depreciation on such portion of the premises as is in occupation of the appellant for the purpose of its business. 19. We observe that the assessee claimed depreciation on factory building at Rs. 72,274 out of which the learned Assessing Officer disallowed 1/3rd amounting to Rs. 24,091 for the reasons given by him in detail in earlier assessment order. The learned CIT(A) followed his earlier appellate orders and gave the direction to the learned Assessing Officer as mentioned in para 9 of his order, extracted above. We do not find any infirmity in the said direction of the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any substance in the ground taken by the Revenue. We, accordingly, reject the same. 20. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 149 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... ted. 23. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. 24. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the records. The letter of appointment of Shri N.D. Sharma, branch manager,Patnais placed at page 15 of the paper book. Besides payment of monthly salary of Rs. 1,800, he is entitled to rent free accommodation atPatna. The premises of Shri Malti Prasad at 130/E, Shri Krishna Puri, Patna, has been taken on rent and provided to Shri Sharma for his residence as per the terms of his employment. The payment of rent in respect of the premises provided to the manager of the firm as per the terms of employment cannot be termed as guest house expenses. We are, therefore, satisfied that the disallowance of Rs. 15,000 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not warranted. The same is accordingly deleted. 25. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 148 - ITAT DELHI-B
Penalty, For Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... sustained only on account of the difference in the two estimates relating to the cost of construction. A part of difference has been treated as concealed income or the income in respect of which the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. However, having regard to the ratio of the decision in the case of Anwar Ali, the aforesaid conclusion regarding addition sustained purely on estimate, could not have been reached. On the facts of the case, particularly in the light of the revised estimate of cost of construction, filed by the assessee, it could not be held that the addition made in the assessment order was the taxable income of the assessee. There is no question of treating the addition as concealed income. 16. Thus, in respect of both the items of addition, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is held to be not exigible. The levy of penalty is, accordingly, cancelled. 17. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed, and the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 147 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... Sept., 1987and in para had observed as under The Govt. of Maharashtra have by theBombaySales-tax (Amendment) Act, 1987 made the amendment accordingly. The Board have decided that where amendments are made in the sales-tax laws on these lines, the statutory liability be treated to have been discharged for the purposes of s. 43B of the Act. 8. The Board s Circular No. 674, dt. 29th Dec., 1993 (1994) 116 CTR (St) 9 in para 2 had very clearly observed that the amount of sales-tax shall be deemed to have been actually collected and then disbursed as loan, indicating that it has been treated by them as it was paid. Therefore, the process of deferment and issuance of eligibility certificate bring only procedural to the State Policies in regard to conferring benefits on the assessee, it has to be held that the amount is treated as paid in the year. The addition is accordingly deleted. The ground No. 3 was not pressed, hence, dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1994 (3) TMI 146 - ITAT DELHI
Estate Duty Act, High Court, Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty. However, as the issue of domicile has been set at rest by us as the domicile of choice of the deceased and the deceased died on 20th January, 1975 as domiciled in England and further that only compensation was awarded for the construction of a residential house in Bareilly, and in view of the fact of non-compliance of the specific requirement of the statutory provision that one house or part thereof should have been exclusively used by the deceased for his residence to claim the exemption of rupees one lakh, the stand of the accountable persons that a sum of Rs. 48,383 being the half share of the deceased in the sum of Rs. 96,767 being the compensation awarded for the construction of residential house does not survive. In this view of the matter, the last ground of appeal of the accountable person in regard to claim of exemption under section 33(1)(n) is rejected by us. 8. In the result, the appeal of the accountable persons is partly allowed
-
1994 (3) TMI 145 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... annot be said that the assessee deliberately ignored this income and relied on the income shown in the return. As we have already seen, the amount of interest which has been held to be assessable in this year was highly debatable issue therefore, the assessee cannot be said to have not included that amount in the return with a deliberate object. In these circumstances, the income shown in the return at Rs. 15,267 does not warrant the levy of penalty on the ground of failure to file estimate of advance-tax. Looking to the amount of income returned by the assessee, penalty provisions should not be, in all fairness, invoked in the case of the assessee whose income was marginally higher than the minimum limit. Therefore, looking to the special circumstances, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, no penalty should be levied on the assessee under s. 273(2)(b) of the Act. We, therefore, delete the penalty. The assessee s appeal succeeds and the Revenue s appeal fails.
-
1994 (3) TMI 144 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... s received and the assessee brought the receipt to tax after 60 of the cost had been incurred. Before that, the assessee did not prepare the trading account and treated the money as advance receipt only and not as trade receipt. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee s plea and made the addition. The first appellate authority agreed with the assessee s contention that the system was being followed since the beginning of the business and, therefore, he allowed the assessee s claim and deleted the addition. We have looked into the facts of the case and we find that looking to the past history, the CIT(A) has taken a correct view in the matter and there was no justification to make the addition. The system of accounting adopted by the assessee is the same as in the past. No objection can be taken to the system of accounting adopted by the assessee consistently. We, therefore, find no force in ground No. 5 also and it is rejected. The Revenue s appeal stands partly allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 143 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... nce to the subsequent amendment made in Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) resulting in the addition of certain words and in the deletion of the proviso have to be understood in the light of the Board s circular dated 23-9-1986. It has been clearly mentioned in the said circular that the amended provisions were to apply in respect of the offences or defaults committed hereafter . For assessment year 1983-84, we have to examine the position of the assessee s case as per the existing provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) which included the proviso. Viewed from that angle, the assessee has discharged its onus and there is absolutely no device or subterfuge to defraud or deprive the Revenue and the assessee was justified in not disclosing the income of Rs. 1,87,178 for assessment year 1983-84. 15. Taking a total view of the matter, we hold that no penalty was leviable in this case. The penalty of Rs. 1,22,017 is hereby deleted. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 142 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
... ...
... ... ..... re parting with the subject we may mention the case of Lekh Raj Channa wherein in an identical circumstances, the Tribunal has held that As collection charges the assessee can claim only that part of the expenditure which is referable to collection. However, the other part of the expenditure which is for the maintenance of the building, security of the building and to attend to the requirements of the tenants is also an expenditure borne by the landlord. Such expenditure, if not deductible under collection charges, would have to be considered in computing the annual letting value. Either way, the assessee would get the benefit of the expenditure. Taking all these facts into account, we are of the view that the assessee s claim would be accepted in toto. 9. In view of these facts and circumstances, we hold that the authorities are not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee and we direct them to allow the same as deduction. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 141 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
... ...
... ... ..... nder s. 139(8) r/w r. 119A is debatable issue in this case and is, therefore, not amenable to the jurisdiction under s. 154 as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. and Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). As this point of issue is controversial it does not amount to mistake as per Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Smt. Lilavatiben Harjivandas Kotecha vs. ITO (1979) 11 CTR (Guj) 97 (1980) 122 ITR 863 (Guj). 19. Accordingly, following the decisions of Karnataka High Court in the case of B.V. Aswathaiah and Bros. and for the reasons given in foregoing paras we hold that since the returns were filed on 31st July, 1984, and 31st July, 1985, i.e., before completion of the month, charging of interest under s. 139(8) is illegal and, therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in quashing the orders under s. 154 for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86. 20. In the result, the orders of the CIT(A) are upheld and the Departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 140 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Late Filing, Mistake Apparent From Record
-
1994 (3) TMI 139 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... ble in view of the notification of the CBDT under sub-s. (3) of s. 194A wherein the Central Government notified certain institutions on which the provisions of s. 194A are not applicable. Since the Karnataka Electricity Board comes within the said notification, the assessee is not liable under s. 194A of the Act. There is, therefore, in our view, no error in this regard also. 28. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative further relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Indian Textiles for the proposition that if at least in respect of one item the ITO s order found to be prejudicial to the Revenue, the initiation of proceedings under s. 263 cannot be questioned. This decision also, in our view, is not applicable to the facts of the cases as there is no single point which can be found to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT under s. 263 of the Act. 29. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 138 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Assessment Year, Borrowed Capital, Raw Material ... ... ... ... ..... t year 1981-82 only. It pertains to addition of cash credits of Rs. 46,000. The AO disbelieved the loans advanced by Smt. Chandraben M. Sanghrajka Rs. 26,000 and Shri Mahesh M. Sanghrajka Rs. 20,000 on the ground that they were received in cash and they were not assessed to tax and the assessee had not identified the signature of the creditors. The financial capacity of the creditors was also doubted. Hence, he assessed the loans as income from undisclosed sources. 26. On appeal before the CIT (Appeals) except general explanation no evidence was produced to establish creditworthiness of the creditors. Accordingly, the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the additions. 27. After hearing the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned D.R., we uphold the decision of the CIT (Appeals) for except the confirmation letters, there is no corroborative evidence was produced for the availability of funds and the nexus with the loans advanced. 28. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 137 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Year, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... he validity of the revised return, as laid down by the Gauhati High Court in the case of F. C. Agarwal and as subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court, seems to have been fulfilled. The present case is certainly not one like the other decided by the Gauhati High Court and the facts of the present case are totally different from those of that particular case. On the other hand, the facts of the present case seem to be in line with those of J.K.A. Rajappa Chettiar s case as decided by the Madras High Court. Since there is no concealment on the part of the assessee, if the revised returns of income be taken into consideration, we are finally of the view that these are not fit cases for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The penalties actually levied by the Assessing Officer and subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A) are, therefore, being cancelled by reversing the orders of both the lower authorities. 13. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 136 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessing Officer, Assessment Notice, Assessment Year, Reassessment Notice, Revised Return, Set On
-
1994 (3) TMI 135 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Revised Return, Set On, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... t year 1987-88 back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that he should examine first whether the assessee can be considered to be a hithertobefore assessed assessee during the financial year corresponding to assessment year 1987-88 and if so, whether the assessment immediately completed before the date of last instalment for payment of advance tax during that financial year was at a non-taxable income as alleged by the assessee. If the position be found to be so factually correct, it is hereby ordered that no interest would be liable to be levied in accordance with the abovementioned decision of the Bombay High Court. Otherwise, however, if the factual conditions be found to be different than as alleged by the assessee and as discussed by us above, the levy of interest is tenable to hold good. 14. In the result, the departmental appeals for all the three years are dismissed, whereas the assessee s appeals are partially allowed to the abovementioned extent.
-
1994 (3) TMI 134 - ITAT BANGALORE
A Firm, A Partner, Amnesty Scheme, Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Cash Credits
-
1994 (3) TMI 133 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Year, Educational Institutions, Setting Up ... ... ... ... ..... d stipend and the total expenditure was Rs. 1,61,662.45. This amount has figured on the expenditure side in the account ending on 31-3-1983. Research grant had been received and this is shown on the income side of the account extract ending on 31-3-1983. The research fellows who were qualified are awarded degrees by the Mangalore University. Thus the fellows in the field of research acquire super specialisation in the field of medicine which is a distinct academic qualification. In the face of these things it cannot be said that there is no impartation of education by formal schooling. There is the teacher, the taught and the research wing which is the hub of their activity. The research wing of the Trust is an institution by itself engaged in super specialisation in the branch of medicine. We are, therefore, firmly of the view that the exemption granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 10(22) is unquestionable. 15. The appeal by the revenue fails. It is dismissed.
............
|
