|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 317 Records
-
1991 (7) TMI 139 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... tion of the well there may bot be any return on that account. This line of thinking, therefore, does not establish that the above acts of development were not actually carried out by the assessee. 32. Lastly, the learned Departmental Representative contended that most of the expenditure incurred by the assessee was in sums above Rs. 2,500 and payments were made in cash. Therefore, the expenditure is disallowable under s. 40A(3) of the Act. Sec. 40A(3) has not been invoked by the AO or by the CIT(A) and, in our view, such a plea cannot be raised by the Revenue at this stage because the assessee has had no opportunity of showing why payments were made in cash. This plea is, therefore, rejected. 33. No other point was raised in the aforesaid appeals and in view of the above discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed. The profit arising on the sale of the land in asst. yr. 1986-87 shall be recomputed by the AO in the light of our decision on the various items of expenditure.
-
1991 (7) TMI 138 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee has been meeting part of his household expenses from the proceeds from agricultural land. In view of this, the addition is deleted. 22. The 12th ground of appeal is that the closing capital balance as on31st March, 1985has been wrongly determined and confirmed by the Dy. Commr. (A) at Rs. 4,500, instead of Rs. 44,000 as available and shown in the return, mainly on the basis of not accepting the opening accrued capital, etc. This ground of appeal is also connected with the capital arrived at as a result of cash flow statement right from 1974-75 to 1985-86. In such circumstances, the capital of Rs. 44,000 as on31st March, 1985is accepted. 23. The 13th ground of appeal is general in nature and, therefore, called for no specific consideration. 24. In the 14th ground of appeal, it is stated that the penal action and charging of interest have wrongly been upheld. This was stated to be consequential. It calls for no further consideration. 25. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 137 - ITAT DELHI-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Such Person ... ... ... ... ..... ur view, the job of the Assessing Officers is not to play a ping pong battle of wits with the assessees nor do the Assessing Officers normally intend to harass the assessees. Considering the enormous amount of piling litigation increasing day-by-day we wish revenue authorities follow this process of confronting the assessee about the insufficiency of evidence before finalising the assessment so that unnecessary litigation could be avoided. In this case assessee has thought that the evidence produced before the Assessing Officer was sufficient to establish its claim. As it is, Assessing Officer has found it otherwise. From the records there is no evidence that assessee was ever asked to further substantiate its claim. We accordingly in the interests of justice remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding it afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 20 to 34. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1991 (7) TMI 136 - ITAT DELHI-B
Being Heard, Best Judgment Assessment, Carry Forward, Revised Return, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... nt. Gr. No. 3. The order is bad at law and against facts of the case. 28. It is thus evident that in passing the impugned order the CIT(A) had caused no injustice to the assessee. Therefore, the necessity of doing substantial justice to the assessee is also not borne out from the facts and circumstances of this case as no injustice at all has been occasioned to the assessee by the order of the CIT(A). Instead the impugned order seeks to do justice to the cause of Revenue which is a party to this litigation as was it before the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji. 29. To sum up we not only find the appeal miserably time barred and no sufficient cause to condone the delay but also no merits in assessee s appeal and no injustice having been caused to it by the impugned order. Therefore, Revenue s cross-objection deserves to be partly allowed while the appeal of the assessee to be dismissed. 30. Assessee s appeal is dismissed while Revenue s cross-objection is partly allowed
-
1991 (7) TMI 135 - ITAT DELHI-A
Appellate Authority, Assessment Order, Deduction In Respect, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Revenue Receipt, Sales Tax
-
1991 (7) TMI 134 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... s. Blyth 1 All ER 524). Thus the ITO in the course of proceedings for the assessment has to form a prima facie view that it is a case where, subject to what the assessee may have to say, he should initiate proceedings so that the majesty of the law is upheld. He must reach a clear conclusion that a good ground exists for launching penalty proceedings. It is this satisfaction which is the foundation of action for imposition of penalty (Jiten vs. STO 39 STC 308). The Supreme Court had held in CWT vs. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) that satisfaction before conclusion of the proceeding under the Act, and not the issue of a notice for initiation of any step for imposing penalty is a condition for the exercise of the jurisdiction. In this case we are satisfied that the satisfaction of the ITO was not there for launching of the penalty proceedings. Hence the penalties levied are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash them. 9. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 133 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... auses to Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980, the explanatory memo as well as the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes after the amendment was enforced as pointed out by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Lakshmi Narayana mentioned supra. 16. Now if the case before us is examined in the light of the above position of law, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer could not disturb the partial partition recognised by order under section 171 made on 22-4-1980. Since the proceedings for all the assessment years under appeal were based entirely on de-recognizing partial partition recognised earlier, the entire proceedings were ab initio void. The CIT(A), therefore, though for different reasons, rightly arrived at the conclusion that he did. Since he has restored the status quo ante with respect to all the assessment years under appeal, it cannot be said that the interest of the Revenue has been prejudiced in any manner. 17. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed
-
1991 (7) TMI 132 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... re is no question of revenue proving anything further for bringing home the offence of concealment by the assessee under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Yet further, before concluding, we like to clarify that concealment penalty shall be levied by working out the income-tax evaded by the assessee vis-a-vis net profit worked out on the turnover disclosed in the return of income filed on 21-7-1979 and the turnover disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed on 24-7-1980, i.e., the difference of the two shall only be taken as the concealed income because taking of the unexplained investment involved in the sales, in our considered opinion, has no basis for imposition of concealment penalty inasmuch as this issue is debatable one and positive concealment is not attributable to the assessee qua this income of Rs. 22,590. 11. The penalty shall be worked out afresh in the above terms. The revenue succeeds in its appeal which we will term as partly allowed
-
1991 (7) TMI 131 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... not part of the sale consideration. The amount was to cover the loss, the assessee suffered because it was deprived the use of money. The amount was paid to discharge an obligation arising from an express contract and for keeping the assessee the timely use of money. The matter in our view is fully covered against the assessee as per the decision in the case of Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT 1964 53 ITR 151 (SC) and T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT 1967 66 ITR 465 (SC). The amount of interest-cannot be treated as mere accretion of consideration bearing the same character. In truth and in substance it was interest and was correctly described. It was not compensation for any wrongful use and occupation of property. The amount in question was rightly treated as revenue receipt and brought to tax. For the above reasons we uphold the order of CIT(A) in both the years. 7 and 8. These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues. 9. In the result, the appeals are dismissed
-
1991 (7) TMI 130 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Business Income, Carrying On Business, Income From Other Sources, Manufacture And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... ousing. But then, where a company carries on an organised business activity, which is not warranted by its Memorandum of Association and derives income, which is essentially and intrinsically income from business, the same cannot be taxed as income from other sources merely on the ground that the Memorandum of Association of the company does not permit it engaging in such type of business. In the instant case, we feel inclined to accept the argument of the learned representative of the assessee that this part of the activity carried on by the assessee-company is an organised business activity. Any income derived from such activity is, therefore, liable to be treated and taxed as business income and not as income from other sources. The two appeals of the assessee are thus entitled to succeed. 6. In the result, we allow these two appeals and direct that the income of the assessee from warehouses shall be treated and taxed as business income. The appeals are allowed accordingly
-
1991 (7) TMI 129 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Accounting Year, Work In Progress ... ... ... ... ..... 85 with Vidhi Construction (page 28 of the compilation). We find that as part of this agreement, Rs. 10 lakhs were received in 1985 on 15-5-85 and 22-5-85 and there is no justification for bringing this amount to tax in the accounting year under appeal. On this ground also, in our opinion, the assessee is entitled to succeed. We find that the directions given by the CIT(A) in para 12 of his order in this regard are vague and conditional. On the facts stated before us and the papers filed, we are satisfied that no amount was received during the year and, therefore, there is no justification for taxing it in the year under appeal. The amount has not been accounted for as receipt in the books relating to the year of account and, on the other hand, papers filed indicate that the amount was received in 1985 and its taxation in the year under appeal as revenue receipt is not only arbitrary but also incorrect. The same is, therefore, directed to be deleted. 14. The appeal is allowed
-
1991 (7) TMI 128 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... made in the Act. 17. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and in view of the retrospective amendment made in the aforesaid sections of the Act, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the IT authorities in treating Rs. 60,26,333 as assessee s income chargeable to tax. It is by now a right law that the Tribunal has no power to decide the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 18. The last issue pertains to the charging of interest under ss. 216 and 139(8) of the Act. The learned Advocate for the assessee was fair enough to state that this issue is of consequential nature depending upon our decision on various other issues taken up in this appeal. In this view of the matter, we direct the IAC (Asst) to rework the interest chargeable under these two sections while giving effect to our order. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 127 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
A Firm, A Partner, Industrial Undertaking, Plant And Machinery, Profits And Gains, Tenancy Rights
-
1991 (7) TMI 126 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Applied To, Commercial Profit, Indian Company, Permanent Establishment ... ... ... ... ..... n individual in the Joweth Dictionary and also in the Black s Law Dictionary referring it to the services of a human being. We, therefore, do not find any force in the contention of the revenue that the fees received by the assessee would be taxable under article XIV of AADT. Emphasis has been given by the CIT (Appeals) on the word person , which, according to him, includes a company. It is true that a person may include a company but the personal services would mean the services of a human being or a living person as, in our opinion, no personal services could be rendered by a person other than individual or a living person. 10. In the result, for the discussion aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the fees received by the assessee was in the nature of industrial and commercial profit and assessee having no permanent establishment in India, the fees received would not be taxable in India by virtue of article III of AADT with Denmark. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1991 (7) TMI 125 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Agricultural Implements, Co-operative Society, Deduction In Respect ... ... ... ... ..... in time without any reasonable cause. Such a bona fide belief that its income is not liable to tax constitutes reasonable cause. The contentions relating to various items of additions were accepted in the past as well as in the subsequent years. The latest assessed income for asst. yr. 1980-81 was nil figure. The return of income was furnished only with a view to claim refund of advance tax amounting to Rs. 2,81,600. Under the aforesaid circumstances we are of the considered view that these circumstances constituted reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the return in time. Hence no penalty under s. 271(1)(a) can be validly imposed under such facts and circumstances. This view is fortified by the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Ramalaxmi Jivraj vs. CWT (1982) 138 ITR 731 (Guj). We, therefore, cancel the said penalty. 17. In the result the Revenue s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection submitted by the assessee is allowed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 124 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Manufacture And Sale, New Industrial Undertaking, Plant And Machinery, Profits And Gains, Splitting Up
-
1991 (7) TMI 123 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Expenditure Incurred, Interest On Borrowed Money, Purchase And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... that section 80AA was mainly declaratory of the law as it always was. The relief under this Chapter has to be calculated with reference to the net amount of various incomes like dividend, etc. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Cotton Fabrics Ltd. had considered the effect of section 80AA, and thereafter came to the conclusion that where a dealer in shares borrows money for the purposes of his business of dealing in shares the entire interest on money borrowed is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) in computing the business income. Therefore, despite section 80AA the dividend is not to be reduced by any part of the proportionate amount of interest in calculating the dedtiction allowable under section 80M. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court, we direct the ITO to grant relief under section 80M on dividend income of Rs. 3,58,000 at the rate of 60 . 7. The remaining two grounds are rejected as not pressed. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
-
1991 (7) TMI 122 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... the father is separate from them. 9. The net result of the above discussion is that in the case of a sole surviving coparcener, there is no coparcener to claim partition and sole surviving coparcener retains the property in the status of his separate individual property, hence there could not be any partition in the case of an HUF having only sole surviving coparcener. We hold accordingly. 10. In view of the above finding, the orders of the learned lower authorities on the above issue viz. partition stand upheld, with consequences flowing out of these to follow. The Assessing Officer is directed to take into account the above finding and modify/amend the impugned assessments in the hands of the different assessees-appellants in tune with the above findings. Subject to the rider about the directions to the learned Assessing Officer for taking consequential actions in the hands of the different assessees/appellants, the assessees fail and all the four appeals stand dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 121 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... initiation was held to be a procedural error. In the present case, if the ITO had initiated proceedings under s. 186 of the Act and then in the course of that proceedings had omitted to obtain approval of the IAC, the ratio of said decision would have been applicable. However, in the present case, the ITO initiated proceedings under s. 185 of the Act. He reopened the assessment under s. 147 of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 20,000 in the said reassessment and thereafter proceeded to consider the question of registration under s. 185 of the Act. As already stated earlier, proceedings under ss. 185 and 186 are distinct proceedings. Since in the present case proceedings under s. 186 were never initiated, there was no question of occurrence of procedural error in a validly initiated proceedings. The order of the ITO treating the firm as unregistered firm has been rightly cancelled by the Dy. CIT(A). I reject the grounds raised by the Department. 6. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 120 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rmanent physical disability he could have earned more. In the present case, the ITO has not paid attention to the requirement of provisions of s. 80U of the Act. Mere fact that assessee attended dispensary at two places and mere fact that assessee s income increased would not disentitle the assessee to claim deduction if he suffered from a permanent physical disability which had the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation. The correctness of the certificate of the Civil Surgeon has not been doubted by the ITO. The ITO has not found as a fact that the assessee did not suffer from permanent physical disability and that, that disability was objectively such that it had the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment. Considering the entire circumstances the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80U of the Act. I direct the ITO to allow said deduction. 8. The appeal is partly allowed.
............
|
