|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 305 Records
-
1995 (9) TMI 108
Issues Involved:
The appeal concerns the deletion of a sum of Rs. 2,58,537 as a bad debt by the CIT (Appeals) u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Disallowance of Bad Debt
The revenue appealed against the deletion of a sum of Rs. 2,58,537 as a bad debt by the CIT (Appeals). The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction as the assessee had not made efforts to recover the amount from Indian Railways. However, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the deduction citing the amendment in section 36(1)(vii), emphasizing that the debt had been written off and it was not necessary to establish it as a bad debt. The revenue contended that the debt due from the Government cannot be considered bad debt, and some amounts were not old enough to be written off. The assessee argued that the debt was irrecoverable from a businessman's perspective and that recovery efforts were not pursued due to business reasons.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 36(1)(vii)
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) before and after the amendment effective from 1-4-1989. It was clarified that under the amended provision, the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction if a bad debt is written off as irrecoverable. The Tribunal emphasized that the debt must be a bad debt and not just any debt to be eligible for deduction. The Tribunal referred to Circular No. 551, dated 23rd January, 1990, which explained the rationale behind the amendment to avoid disputes regarding the year in which a bad debt can be allowed.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT (Appeals) did not assess whether the debt written off was indeed a bad debt. As per the interpretation of section 36(1)(vii), only bad debts can be claimed as deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (Appeals) order and directed a reassessment to determine if the written-off debt qualified as a bad debt. The Revenue's appeal was deemed allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1995 (9) TMI 107
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 95,000 in the trading account
2. Disallowance of Rs. 2,000 out of staff welfare and miscellaneous expenses
3. Disallowance of Rs. 15,000 under the head advertisement and publicity
4. Addition of Rs. 5,592 on account of expenses of earlier years
Analysis:
Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 95,000 in the trading account
The AO added Rs. 2,85,000 to the gross profits declared by estimating sales at Rs. 95 lakhs and enhancing the gross profit rate by 3%. The CIT(A) sustained a trading addition of Rs. 95,000, increasing the gross profit rate by 1%. The assessee argued that the addition was unjustified as full records were maintained, and the fall in the gross profit rate was due to higher raw material costs. The ITAT noted that the books of account were supported by excise records and deleted the addition as the CIT(A) did not point out any specific defects in the accounts maintained by the assessee.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 2,000 out of staff welfare and miscellaneous expenses
The AO disallowed Rs. 2,000 out of staff welfare and miscellaneous expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance as no details were provided regarding the expenses. However, the ITAT, upon reviewing the bills and explanations provided, found that the expenses were legitimate business expenses and deleted the disallowance.
Issue 3: Disallowance of Rs. 15,000 under the head advertisement and publicity
The AO disallowed Rs. 15,000 out of the claimed advertisement and publicity expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance due to lack of details on specific expenses. The ITAT, after examining the bills related to gifts and other items, concluded that the disallowance was unwarranted as the expenses were incurred in the course of business, and hence, deleted the addition.
Issue 4: Addition of Rs. 5,592 on account of expenses of earlier years
The AO added Rs. 5,592 for expenses of earlier years claimed in the current year based on the audit report. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating the explanation provided was insufficient. The ITAT, after reviewing the bills and confirming that they were raised in the current year, allowed the expenses in the current year and deleted the addition.
In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal in part, deleting the additions made by the AO and CIT(A) in various expense categories due to lack of specific defects or discrepancies in the accounts maintained by the assessee.
-
1995 (9) TMI 106
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of shares for wealth tax purposes.
2. Applicability of Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules.
3. Imposition of penalties under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act.
4. Bona fide explanation and concealment of wealth.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Valuation of Shares for Wealth Tax Purposes:
The assessee disclosed the value of shares for three assessment years: 1983-84, 1986-87, and 1987-88. The values returned by the assessee were significantly lower than the values assessed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee valued the shares based on the report of M/s S.L. Khandelwal & Co., Chartered Accountants, relying on Supreme Court decisions in CGT vs. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia and Mahadeo Jalan vs. CWT. The AO, however, followed Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, as mandated by the Allahabad High Court, resulting in much higher assessed values.
2. Applicability of Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules:
The AO relied on Rule 1D for valuing unquoted equity shares, as upheld by the Allahabad High Court in several cases, including CWT vs. Padampat Singhania and Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT. The AO argued that Rule 1D was mandatory and had to be followed. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed the mandatory nature of Rule 1D in Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT.
3. Imposition of Penalties under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act:
The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of wealth. The assessee contended that the valuation was bona fide and based on expert advice. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [CWT(A)] canceled the penalties, stating that the difference in valuation was a legal issue rather than concealment of wealth. However, the Tribunal held that Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) was applicable, which deems an assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars if the returned value is less than 70% of the assessed value. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's act of ignoring Rule 1D and the jurisdictional High Court's decisions could not be considered bona fide.
4. Bona Fide Explanation and Concealment of Wealth:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Explanations 2 and 4 to Section 18(1)(c). Explanation 2 provides that if an explanation is bona fide and all facts are disclosed, no penalty should be imposed. However, Explanation 4 specifically deals with inaccurate particulars and does not consider bona fide explanations. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's conduct was not bona fide, as he ignored the Wealth Tax Rules and jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the returned value was the correct value, thus making him liable for penalties under Section 18(1)(c).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals, reinstating the penalties imposed by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee's valuation method was not bona fide and that the provisions of Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) were correctly applied. The CWT(A)'s order canceling the penalties was overturned.
-
1995 (9) TMI 105
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of shares for Wealth-tax purposes.
2. Applicability of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules.
3. Imposition of penalties under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act.
4. Interpretation of Explanation 2 and Explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act.
5. Bona fide conduct of the assessee in valuation of shares.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Valuation of Shares for Wealth-tax Purposes:
The assessee disclosed the value of shares of two private limited companies for three assessment years, which were significantly lower than the values assessed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee valued the shares based on the report of M/s B.L. Khandelwal & Co., Chartered Accountants, using the yield basis method, relying on Supreme Court decisions in CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia and CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan. However, the Assessing Officer, relying on decisions from the Allahabad High Court and the mandatory application of Rule 1D, assessed the shares at much higher values and initiated penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act.
2. Applicability of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules:
The Assessing Officer followed Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, which prescribes a specific method for valuing unquoted equity shares. The officer's stance was supported by decisions from the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, which held that Rule 1D was mandatory. The Tribunal reiterated that the assessee, falling under the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court, was bound to follow Rule 1D for share valuation.
3. Imposition of Penalties under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act:
The Assessing Officer imposed penalties for all three years under section 18(1)(c) due to the substantial difference between the returned and assessed values of the shares. The penalties were initially canceled by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) on the grounds that the issue was a legal dispute over the method of valuation rather than concealment of wealth or submission of inaccurate particulars.
4. Interpretation of Explanation 2 and Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act:
The Tribunal clarified the distinct applications of Explanation 2 and Explanation 4. Explanation 2 deals with concealment of particulars of assets, allowing exoneration if the explanation is bona fide and all material facts are disclosed. In contrast, Explanation 4 specifically addresses cases where the returned value of an asset is less than 70% of the assessed value, deeming the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars unless they prove the returned value is correct. The Tribunal emphasized that Explanation 4 does not consider the bona fide nature of the explanation, focusing solely on the accuracy of the returned value.
5. Bona Fide Conduct of the Assessee in Valuation of Shares:
The Tribunal found that the assessee's conduct was not bona fide, as they ignored the mandatory Wealth-tax Rules and the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The assessee's reliance on the Supreme Court decisions was deemed misplaced, as those cases did not address the applicability of Wealth-tax Rules. The Tribunal held that the assessee's act of filing returns based on advice from a Chartered Accountant, without adhering to Rule 1D, was not bona fide.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was liable to penalties under section 18(1)(c) read with Explanation 4, as they failed to prove that the returned value of the shares was correct. The Tribunal canceled the order of the CWT (Appeals) and upheld the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer. The appeals filed by the revenue were allowed, reinforcing the mandatory application of Rule 1D and the stringent interpretation of Explanation 4 in cases of significant discrepancies between returned and assessed values.
-
1995 (9) TMI 104
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "profit" in sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC.
2. Whether loss under sub-s. (3) should be ignored while applying the proviso to sub-s. (3).
3. Computation of "profits of business" under cl. (baa) of Expln. to s. 80HHC.
4. Eligibility for deduction under s. 80HHC when there is a loss.
5. Validity of Form 10CCAC submitted by the assessee.
Summary:
1. Interpretation of "Profit" in sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC:
The assessee, a sea food exporter, filed a revised return showing a deduction u/s 80HHC of Rs. 24,41,266 but limited the claim to Rs. 11,29,813. The AO recomputed the deduction and held that since the net result was a loss, the assessee was not eligible for any deduction u/s 80HHC. The CIT(A) held that the adjustments made by the AO were debatable issues and deleted the disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the term "profit" in sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC should not include losses, and a liberal construction should be applied to advance the relief intended for exporters.
2. Loss Under sub-s. (3) and Proviso Application:
The Tribunal held that even if the computation under sub-s. (3) results in a loss, the proviso to sub-s. (3) should be construed independently to allow the assessee the deduction of an amount equal to 90% of the sums referred to in cl. (iiia), (iiib), and (iiic) of s. 28. The Tribunal emphasized that s. 80HHC is a benevolent section designed to benefit exporters and should be interpreted liberally.
3. Computation of "Profits of Business" Under cl. (baa) of Expln. to s. 80HHC:
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's plea regarding the computation of "profits of business" and directed the AO to quantify the profits in terms of cl. (baa) of Expln. to s. 80HHC. The Tribunal clarified that certain receipts, such as service charges from export houses, should not be considered as "charges" and should not be deducted from the profits of the business.
4. Eligibility for Deduction Under s. 80HHC When There is a Loss:
The Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under the proviso to sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC even if there is no profit under the main provision of sub-s. (3). The Tribunal directed the AO to quantify the amount of deduction and allow the same subject to the availability of total income.
5. Validity of Form 10CCAC Submitted by the Assessee:
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the defective Form 10CCAC should disqualify the assessee from the deduction. The Tribunal directed that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to cure the defects in the Form.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the AO to verify the computation and quantify the deduction in accordance with the Tribunal's observations.
-
1995 (9) TMI 103
Issues Involved:
1. Charging of interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 15,30,201 claimed on account of alleged embezzlement by the Accountant.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Charging of interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act:
At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground was merely consequential in nature. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow consequential relief, if any, as a result of this order.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 15,30,201 claimed on account of alleged embezzlement by the Accountant:
Facts of the Case:
The assessee is a registered firm deriving income from the manufacture and sale of rolled steel products. For the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee filed its return declaring a net income of Rs. 81,340, which included a debit of Rs. 4 lacs for embezzlement. A revised return was later filed, declaring a loss of Rs. 10,48,860, claiming additional embezzlement losses for the preceding three years, totaling Rs. 15,30,201.
Assessing Officer's Findings:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, stating that the loss had not been discovered and had not become irrecoverable. He also noted inconsistencies in the claim amount and the civil suit filed, which was only for Rs. 11,80,000.
CIT (Appeals) Findings:
The CIT (Appeals) observed that the partners of the firm were educated and found it inconceivable that such a large amount could be embezzled by an accountant without their connivance. He also noted that only one of the two partners requested for examination was produced. He concluded that it was a case of fraud by the partners in connivance with the accountant and upheld the disallowance.
Assessee's Arguments:
The learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the embezzlement was discovered in February 1985 and that the Chartered Accountants were only quantifying the amount. He cited various legal precedents and a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stated that losses due to embezzlement should be allowed in the year they are discovered.
Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal admitted the judgment of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Amloh, which held that the accountant had embezzled the amount. However, it did not admit the report of the Questioned Documents Examiner and the certificate from the Chartered Accountants due to their late submission.
Key Points Considered:
- The Tribunal found no evidence of collusion between the partners and the accountant.
- The Tribunal noted that the embezzlement was discovered at the earliest on 20-7-1985, as indicated by the audit reports and the filing of the FIR.
- The Tribunal accepted the principle that embezzlement losses should be allowed in the year of discovery but concluded that the discovery did not occur in the assessment year 1985-86.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the embezzlement had not been discovered within the assessment year 1985-86 and thus, the loss could not be allowed as a deduction for that year.
-
1995 (9) TMI 102
Issues:
Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1988-89 based on the classification of cars as road transport vehicles.
Analysis:
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the assessee, an individual engaged in the business of jewelry, was eligible for a deduction under section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1988-89. The contention revolved around the classification of cars purchased by the assessee as road transport vehicles. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under section 32AB on the basis that the cars were considered road transport vehicles and hence ineligible for the deduction. The CIT(A) upheld this decision.
The assessee's counsel argued that the cars should not be classified as road transport vehicles as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The counsel highlighted that the term "road transport vehicle" was not defined under the Income-tax Act, necessitating reference to the Motor Vehicles Act for interpretation. The counsel emphasized that the cars were not public service vehicles or goods vehicles, which are typically considered road transport vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act.
On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the term "road transport vehicles" should be understood in common parlance as the Income-tax Act did not provide a specific definition. Reference was made to judicial interpretations in similar contexts to argue that cars should not be considered plant and machinery for the purpose of deduction under section 32AB.
The Tribunal analyzed the definitions under both Acts and concluded that since the term "road transport vehicle" was not explicitly defined in either Act, it should be interpreted based on common understanding. The Tribunal reasoned that in common parlance, a motor car qualifies as a road transport vehicle as it transports people and goods on roads. Citing precedents, the Tribunal affirmed that motor cars are considered road transport vehicles for tax purposes.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the motor cars purchased by the assessee for business use did not meet the criteria for deduction under section 32AB as they were classified as road transport vehicles. The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the definitions, precedents, and legislative intent surrounding the classification of vehicles for tax deductions.
-
1995 (9) TMI 101
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of CIT's invocation of sections 45(2) and 45(3) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Legality of revising assessments completed under section 143(1) via section 263.
3. Taxability of unaccounted monies received by the firm in the hands of the partners.
4. Validity of the CIT's direction for fresh investigation and enquiry by the ITO.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of CIT's Invocation of Sections 45(2) and 45(3) of the Income-tax Act:
The CIT invoked sections 45(2) and 45(3) to bring to tax the alleged capital gains arising from the contribution of land by the partners to the firm. However, the Tribunal found that section 45(3) could not apply as it was introduced only with effect from 1-4-1988, and the transfer in question took place on 1-7-1980. The Tribunal also noted that section 45(2) read with section 2(47)(iv) was inapplicable since these provisions were introduced to prevent avoidance of tax on capital gains through conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade by the same assessee, whereas in this case, the partners contributed their capital assets to the firm, making the firm the owner of the property. The Tribunal concluded that neither section 45(2) nor section 45(3) applied to the facts of the present case, and the CIT's orders on this ground were unsustainable.
2. Legality of Revising Assessments Completed Under Section 143(1) via Section 263:
The assessees contended that since the assessments were completed under section 143(1), they could not be revised under section 263. They relied on the order of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in Puranmall Narayan Prasad Kedia (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT [1994] 48 ITD 439. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, held that the orders of the CIT could not be sustained. The Tribunal reasoned that the CIT had not reached any firm conclusion but had only set aside the assessments for fresh investigation and enquiries, causing no prejudice to the assessees.
3. Taxability of Unaccounted Monies Received by the Firm in the Hands of the Partners:
The CIT directed the ITO to investigate whether any part of the unaccounted monies received by the firm was taxable in the hands of the partners. The Tribunal found that the firm had already been assessed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 1986-87, including the unaccounted monies as business income. Since the amount had already been assessed in the firm's hands, no second assessment of the proportionate share of the partners in those monies was permissible. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT erred in directing the ITO to enquire and include the proportionate share of the partners in the unaccounted monies received by the firm.
4. Validity of the CIT's Direction for Fresh Investigation and Enquiry by the ITO:
The CIT set aside the assessments with a direction to the ITO to complete them afresh after making necessary enquiries and investigations. The Tribunal held that the CIT's orders were unsustainable on merits. The Tribunal noted that the firm was recognized as genuine, granted registration, and assessed in respect of the sale of the building constructed by it. The Tribunal found no evidence or material to support the contention that the firm was created merely to avoid capital gains tax. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and allowed the appeals.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the CIT's orders under section 263 were unsustainable on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and allowed the appeals, concluding that neither section 45(2) nor section 45(3) applied to the facts of the case, and the unaccounted monies received by the firm could not be assessed in the hands of the partners. The Tribunal also found that the CIT's direction for fresh investigation and enquiry by the ITO was erroneous.
-
1995 (9) TMI 100
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in levying penalty under section 273(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Validity of notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 274/273; Applicability of section 292B of the Act in penalty proceedings.
Analysis:
The appeal challenges the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction in imposing a penalty under section 273(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee initially estimated income at Rs. 30,000, later revised to Rs. 40,000, but returned income was Rs. 73,940. The Assessing Officer accepted this under section 143(3) subject to rectification under section 155. Subsequently, a notice for advance tax was issued, and after explanation, a penalty of Rs. 2,745 was imposed under section 273(2)(c). The first appellate authority upheld the penalty, citing a different sub-section of section 273 for short payment of advance tax, invoking section 292B to validate the penalty proceedings.
The appellant contends that the penalty proceedings were initiated illegally and void ab initio. The notice issued by the Assessing Officer lacked specificity on the provision/sub-section under which the penalty was imposed. The appellant argued that the penalty was based on section 212(3A), which was omitted from the statute book since 1-6-1978. The first appellate authority's reliance on section 292B was challenged, asserting it does not cover such cases. Case laws were cited to support this argument.
The departmental representative supported the lower authorities' orders and cited precedents to argue that incorrect mention of the section or sub-section does not invalidate penalty proceedings, with section 292B providing a remedy for such errors.
The Tribunal found that the penalty was imposed under an incorrect provision not applicable to the case. The notice lacked specificity on the penalty provision, mentioning an omitted section 212(3). The Tribunal held that the mistake in mentioning section 273(2)(c) was not a technical error but a jurisdictional flaw, making the proceedings void ab initio. Citing case law, the Tribunal emphasized that section 292B does not cure jurisdictional defects. It further noted the violation of natural justice principles in the penalty proceedings, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty levied, emphasizing the jurisdictional and procedural errors in the penalty proceedings.
-
1995 (9) TMI 99
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount received for surrendering statutory tenancy rights is casual and non-recurring within the meaning of section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and exigible to tax u/s 56 of the Act.
2. Nature of interest held by a statutory tenant under the Bombay Rent Act.
3. Whether the receipt in question is income and taxable under the Income-tax Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Whether the amount received for surrendering statutory tenancy rights is casual and non-recurring within the meaning of section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and exigible to tax u/s 56 of the Act.
The Tribunal examined whether the amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000 received by the assessee for surrendering statutory tenancy rights could be considered a casual and non-recurring receipt u/s 10(3) and thus taxable u/s 56. The assessee argued that the receipt was not liable to tax as capital gains u/s 45, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, which held that if the machinery provision for computation fails, the main provision for computing capital gains also fails. The Assessing Officer, however, treated the amount as casual and non-recurring income under "Income from other sources," relying on CIT v. Gulab Chand.
Issue 2: Nature of interest held by a statutory tenant under the Bombay Rent Act.
The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including Anand Niwas (P.) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi, Ratanlal Chandiprasad Jalan v. Raniram Darkhan, and Chandravarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, to determine the nature of interest held by a statutory tenant. It was concluded that a statutory tenant has no estate or interest in the premises and only has a personal right to remain in possession. This right is not transferable or assignable.
Issue 3: Whether the receipt in question is income and taxable under the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the receipt of Rs. 1,40,00,000 is income. The definition of income under section 2(24) includes capital gains, and the term "income" is of wide import, encompassing all monetary returns. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the receipt did not bear the character of income, supporting the Assessing Officer's view that the receipt was taxable under the Income-tax Act.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the sum of Rs. 1,39,95,000 is taxable income for the assessment year 1990-91, dismissing the assessee's appeal. For the interveners, the Tribunal directed a fresh inquiry to determine whether they had the right to transfer tenancy rights under their original lease agreements. If such a right existed, the receipts should be considered capital gains, and in line with B.C. Srinivasa Setty's case, no tax would be applicable due to the absence of machinery provisions for computation. The appeals of the interveners were allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1995 (9) TMI 98
Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263.
2. Classification of income from the sale of development rights as capital gains or business income.
3. Validity of the CIT's order setting aside the Assessing Officer's (AO) assessment.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Assumption of Jurisdiction by the CIT under Section 263:
The appeal by the assessee challenges the CIT's order under section 263, which assumes jurisdiction to revise the AO's assessment. The CIT issued a notice based on a report from the Deputy CIT, claiming that the profit from the sale of land was incorrectly treated as capital gains rather than business income. The CIT concluded that the AO neither made enquiries nor applied his mind, thus rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The CIT set aside the assessment and directed the AO to reassess after providing the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard.
2. Classification of Income from the Sale of Development Rights:
The assessee, a partnership firm, acquired development rights in 1979 and sold them in 1988, declaring the income as capital gains and claiming exemption under section 54E. The AO accepted this classification after scrutiny. The CIT, however, argued that the income should be classified as business income, citing the firm's business objectives and treatment of the development rights as stock-in-trade. The CIT's order did not specify the facts or enquiries the AO failed to consider.
3. Validity of the CIT's Order Setting Aside the AO's Assessment:
The CIT's order was challenged on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction and failed to demonstrate how the AO's assessment was erroneous. The CIT did not provide specific instances where the AO failed to apply his mind or make necessary enquiries. The Tribunal noted that the CIT's power under section 263 requires showing factual or legal errors in the AO's order and proving that these errors were prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot substitute his opinion for the AO's if the AO's view is also a possible one.
The Tribunal found that the CIT's order lacked specific findings and was based on a general assertion of non-enquiry. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO had all necessary facts before him and no further enquiry was required. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court's ruling in Gabriel India Ltd., which supports the view that the CIT cannot invoke section 263 merely to substitute his opinion or for conducting fishing and roving enquiries.
The Tribunal also distinguished the present case from other cited cases where the CIT's actions were upheld due to clear failures by the AO to make necessary enquiries or apply relevant provisions. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT's order was unjustified as it did not demonstrate any specific errors or required enquiries.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, canceling the CIT's order under section 263. The Tribunal held that the CIT wrongly invoked jurisdiction as the AO had all necessary facts and no further enquiry was needed. The CIT's order lacked specific findings and was based on substituting his opinion for the AO's, which is not permissible under section 263. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the precedent set in Gabriel India Ltd.
-
1995 (9) TMI 97
Issues:
1. Computation of capital gains based on the fair market value of a property.
2. Claiming deduction under section 53 for a residential property.
3. Valuation of perquisites related to rent-free accommodation provided by the employer.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the CIT's order under section 263 regarding the computation of capital gains from the sale of a property. The CIT directed the ITO to determine the fair market value of the property as on 1-1-1964 considering the cost of construction and market value declared in the WT assessments. The CIT rejected the argument that the WT valuation did not reflect the actual property value. The ITAT agreed with the CIT, stating that even if the WT valuation was correct, it would contradict the property's value in 1964. The ITAT upheld the CIT's direction to reassess the property value for capital gains calculation.
2. The assessee claimed a deduction under section 53 for a property, asserting it was a residential house. The CIT found discrepancies in the usage of the property, with the assessee changing statements about its occupation. The ITAT noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting the property's residential use. The ITAT agreed with the CIT's decision to disallow the deduction under section 53, stating that the property did not qualify as a residential house based on the facts presented.
3. The issue of valuing perquisites related to rent-free accommodation provided by the employer was also raised. The CIT directed the ITO to evaluate the perquisites as per Rule 3 of the IT Rules. The ITAT supported the CIT's decision, emphasizing that the rule accounted for situations where the fair rental value was lower than the prescribed percentage. The ITAT upheld the CIT's order, dismissing the appeal and affirming the revision under section 263.
In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT's directions on all issues, emphasizing the need for accurate valuation and compliance with relevant tax provisions in determining capital gains, claiming deductions, and assessing perquisites related to accommodation provided by the employer.
-
1995 (9) TMI 96
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the CIT to invoke powers under section 263.
2. Merits of the CIT's order under section 263 regarding the conversion of foreign currency earnings.
3. Computation of deduction under section 80HHC.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the CIT to Invoke Powers under Section 263:
The first issue raised by the assessee pertains to the jurisdiction of the CIT to invoke powers under section 263, based on the merger theory. The assessee contended that the assessment order revised by the CIT had already merged with the order of the CIT(A) passed before the amendment of section 263 effective from 1-6-1988. The assessee relied on decisions from the Bombay High Court in Ritz Ltd v. Union of India and CIT v. International Computers Indian Mfg. Ltd., and the Karnataka High Court in M.S.P. Spices (P.) Ltd., which suggested that the amended provisions would not apply to orders passed before the amendment.
The learned DR countered by citing subsequent judgments where the ITAT, Bangalore Bench decided in favor of the revenue, emphasizing that the date of the revisionary order is crucial. The Tribunal found that recent trends in judgments considered the date of the revisionary order, holding that if the revisionary order is passed after the amendment, it is valid despite the merger theory. The Tribunal noted that in cases cited by the assessee, the revisionary orders were passed before the amendment, distinguishing them from the present case where the revisionary order was passed after the amendment. Hence, the preliminary ground relating to the jurisdiction of the CIT based on the merger theory does not hold good.
2. Merits of the CIT's Order under Section 263 Regarding the Conversion of Foreign Currency Earnings:
The CIT's order had two limbs, the first concerning the conversion of the assessee's foreign currency earnings. The CIT directed that the AO should have applied Rule 115 of the IT Rules, converting the entire foreign exchange earnings at the rate prevailing on the last day of the accounting year. The assessee contended, relying on a Karnataka High Court judgment in Namasthe Leather Garments (P.) Ltd., that Rule 115 was not applicable.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing the Karnataka High Court judgment, and struck down the CIT's order regarding the conversion of foreign currency earnings.
3. Computation of Deduction under Section 80HHC:
The second appellate ground related to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC on the assessee's export income. The CIT directed that the increment in export turnover should be determined by considering the total export turnover for the current and preceding years, including the decrease in export turnover for watches.
The assessee argued for a liberal interpretation of the exemption provision, citing Supreme Court judgments in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. and CIT v. Canara Workshops (P.) Ltd., claiming that deduction should be allowed only for items showing incremental turnover. However, the Tribunal held that the reference to "goods or merchandise" in section 80HHC should be considered as a whole, not individually. The Tribunal cited judgments from the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Indian Products Ltd. and the ITAT, Madras in N.B. Abdul Gafoor v. ITO, supporting the view that total export turnover should be considered without individual classification.
The assessee also proposed an alternative plea to claim rebate under section 80HHC for only three items, foregoing the deduction for watches. The Tribunal rejected this plea, stating that the assessee should have made this claim earlier and that the Tribunal could not disturb the assessment order portion not appealed.
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's direction regarding the computation of deduction under section 80HHC.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee is partially allowed, with the Tribunal striking down the CIT's order on the conversion of foreign currency earnings but upholding the CIT's direction on the computation of deduction under section 80HHC.
-
1995 (9) TMI 95
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of section 86(v) and section 167A(2) concerning the tax liability of an assessee who is a member of an association of persons (AOP) and derives income from the AOP.
2. Determination of whether the entire allocated income in the hands of the assessee has already suffered tax in the hands of the AOP itself, leading to eligibility for rebate under section 86(v).
Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the tax treatment of income derived from AOPs, specifically the Chengamma Family Foundation. The dispute centered around the interpretation of section 86(v) and section 167A(2) of the Income Tax Act. The ITO and CIT(A) disagreed on the tax liability of the assessee in relation to the discretionary and specific portions of income from the AOPs.
2. The CIT(A) detailed that the appellant, as an individual, derived income from thirteen AOPs, each a beneficiary of the Chengamma Family Foundation. The AOPs distributed income into discretionary and specific portions, with the specific portion being below the taxable level. The appellant claimed rebate under section 86(v) on the entire share income from the AOPs, arguing that the AOPs paid tax on their income as per section 167A(2). However, the ITO and CIT(A) held that the specific portion of income did not qualify for the rebate as it had not been taxed.
3. The appellate tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 167A(2) and section 86(v) in detail. It considered the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel regarding the taxation of the entire income of the AOPs and the applicability of the rebate under section 86(v). The tribunal acknowledged that while one portion of the income had been taxed, the specific portion remained untaxed due to being below the taxable limit. Therefore, it upheld the decision of the lower authorities to deny the rebate on the specific portion of income in the hands of the assessee.
4. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, as it concluded that the lower authorities were correct in denying the rebate under section 86(v) on the specific portion of income that had not been subjected to tax. The judgment emphasized the distinction between the discretionary and specific portions of income from the AOPs and the implications for the tax liability of the assessee.
5. In conclusion, the tribunal's decision reaffirmed the importance of assessing the tax treatment of different portions of income derived from AOPs and upheld the denial of the rebate under section 86(v) on the specific portion of income that had not been taxed. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the relevant provisions and the application of tax laws in determining the assessee's liability in this complex scenario.
-
1995 (9) TMI 94
Issues:
Validity of the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 147(b).
Detailed Analysis:
The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal pertains to the validity of the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 147(b). The assessment for the relevant year was completed under section 143(3), with a creditor, Shri Balbir Prasad Mittal, being credited with a sum of Rs. 60,000 by the assessee. Subsequently, a search conducted at Mittal's premises raised doubts about the genuineness of the loan, leading to the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer based on communication from the ADI, Madras. The CIT (A) upheld the validity of the reopening under section 147(b) but set aside the reassessment on different grounds.
The crux of the contention before the ITAT was whether the Assessing Officer's reasons for initiating the reassessment were valid. The assessee argued that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were merely a reproduction of the communication from the ADI, Madras, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents to support the argument that the reassessment proceeding was invalid due to the Assessing Officer's alleged lack of independent reasoning.
The ITAT examined the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which indicated a belief that income had escaped assessment, primarily due to the doubtful nature of the loan transaction with Mittal. The ITAT considered precedents such as CIT v. Vyjayanthimala Bali and H.A. Nanji & Co. v. ITO to establish the legal standards for valid reassessment proceedings. It was noted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer had exercised discretion based on the communication from the ADI, Madras, and had applied his mind to initiate the reassessment.
In light of the arguments presented and the legal precedents cited, the ITAT concluded that the communication from the ADI, Madras, constituted valid "information" for initiating proceedings under section 147(b). The ITAT affirmed the CIT (A)'s decision regarding the validity of the reassessment and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
-
1995 (9) TMI 93
Issues Involved
1. Non-est return filed on 9th July, 1992.
2. Consideration of facts and particulars furnished with the return.
3. Credit of interest on refund for the assessment year 1989-90.
4. Disallowance of part of the expenditure claimed in earning interest income.
5. Disallowance of bad debt of Rs. 2,23,891.
6. Disallowance of Rs. 17,099 as expenditure on gifts.
7. Charge of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act.
8. Adjustment of refund for the assessment year 1989-90 against the demand for the assessment year 1990-91.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis
1. Non-est Return Filed on 9th July, 1992
The appellant contended that the CIT(A) did not address the grounds related to the non-est return filed on 9th July, 1992. However, the appellant was not serious in pressing this ground. The Tribunal treated this ground as not pressed.
2. Consideration of Facts and Particulars Furnished with the Return
Similarly, the appellant did not press the ground regarding the consideration of facts and particulars furnished with the return. This ground was also treated as not pressed.
3. Credit of Interest on Refund for the Assessment Year 1989-90
The appellant requested the adjustment of the refund for the assessment year 1989-90 against the demand for the year under appeal. The Tribunal found this request reasonable and directed the AO to address this grievance according to law and facts on record.
4. Disallowance of Part of the Expenditure Claimed in Earning Interest Income
The appellant followed a mixed or hybrid system of accounting, showing interest income on a cash basis and expenses on an accrual basis. The AO disallowed Rs. 8,31,71,272 of expenses not paid by 31st March, 1990, but the CIT(A) apportioned the disallowance to Rs. 2,30,88,862. The Tribunal held that the appellant's method of accounting, as per section 209(3)(b) of the Companies Act and the Government Notification of 16th May, 1989, was valid. It was concluded that the appellant correctly showed gross interest on a cash basis and disclosed the accrued amount by way of a note in the annual accounts. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the entire disallowance.
5. Disallowance of Bad Debt of Rs. 2,23,891
The appellant wrote off a bad debt of Rs. 2,23,891 in the assessment year under appeal, although it became bad in an earlier year. The Tribunal noted that under the amended section 36(1)(vii), the only requirement was that the debt should be written off in the year of the claim. The Tribunal allowed the claim for the bad debt.
6. Disallowance of Rs. 17,099 as Expenditure on Gifts
The AO disallowed Rs. 17,099 under Rule 6B of the IT Rules, considering it as advertisement expenditure. The CIT(A) accepted that the expenditure was not for advertisement but still disallowed it. The Tribunal held that the expenditure on gifts and presentations was for business purposes and allowable under section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the entire amount and directed its deletion.
7. Charge of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act
The CIT(A) held that the charge of interest under sections 234B and 234C was not appealable. The appellant requested proportional relief in interest charges based on the reduction in total income. The Tribunal agreed and directed the AO to allow necessary relief.
8. Adjustment of Refund for the Assessment Year 1989-90 against the Demand for the Assessment Year 1990-91
The Tribunal directed the AO to address the appellant's grievance regarding the adjustment of the refund for the assessment year 1989-90 against the demand for the assessment year 1990-91 according to law and facts on record.
Conclusion
The appeal was partly allowed, with directions for the AO to address specific grievances and adjustments, and the deletion of disallowed expenses and bad debt.
-
1995 (9) TMI 92
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of 50% expenses from incentive bonus.
2. Addition of Rs. 11,700 on account of low-household expenses.
Issue 1: Deduction of 50% Expenses from Incentive Bonus
The primary contention revolves around whether the incentive bonus received by the assessee, a Development Officer at LIC, should be treated as part of salary and whether 50% of the incentive bonus could be deducted as expenses. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) concluded that the incentive bonus is part of salary under section 17(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and only standard deductions under section 16(1) are permissible. This view was supported by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. A. Choudary v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 29, which treated incentive bonus as part of salary with no additional deductions beyond those specified in section 16.
The assessee argued that ITAT Benches in Ahmedabad, Bombay, and Chandigarh had previously allowed such deductions, treating the incentive bonus as business income and permitting deductions for expenses incurred in earning the incentive bonus. Special Bench decisions, such as in P. Dayakar v. ITO, allowed 40% of the incentive bonus as deductible expenses. However, the Tribunal noted that the Special Bench's decision was not considered in the case of P. M. Suthar, where the Third Member sided with the view that incentive bonus is part of salary, and only standard deductions under section 16 are allowable.
The Tribunal concluded that the incentive bonus is indeed part of salary, as supported by the Andhra Pradesh and Orissa High Courts in K. A. Choudary and CIT v. Govind Chandra Pani [1995] 213 ITR 783. The Tribunal emphasized judicial discipline, stating that decisions of higher courts must be followed, and thus, the incentive bonus should be taxed as part of salary with no additional deductions beyond those specified in section 16.
Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 11,700 on Account of Low-Household Expenses
The second issue concerns the addition of Rs. 11,700 made by the Assessing Officer due to low-household expenses shown by the assessee. The assessee declared household expenses of Rs. 13,299, which the Assessing Officer deemed inadequate, estimating the expenses at Rs. 25,000. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence that part of the household expenses were contributed by his sons.
The Tribunal agreed with the findings of both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), affirming the addition of Rs. 11,700 due to insufficient household expense declarations by the assessee.
Conclusion
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities on both issues. The incentive bonus was confirmed as part of salary with no additional deductions beyond those specified in section 16, and the addition of Rs. 11,700 for low-household expenses was also upheld.
-
1995 (9) TMI 91
Issues Involved:
1. Sustenance of penalty for delay in depositing tax deducted at source (TDS).
2. Applicability of mens rea for imposition of penalty.
3. Interpretation of sections 201(1), 201(1A), and 221(1) of the Income-tax Act.
4. Assessment of good and sufficient reasons for delay.
5. Quantum of penalty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Sustenance of Penalty for Delay in Depositing TDS:
The assessee, a subsidiary of the State Bank of India, was penalized Rs. 7,24,381 for delays in depositing TDS into the Government Treasury. The delay involved six cases out of 349 payees, with amounts ranging from Rs. 2,300 to Rs. 6,61,644. The assessee argued that the delay was due to clerical oversight and had already paid interest for the delay without appealing those orders. The CIT(A) confirmed part of the penalty, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT, which held that mens rea was not required for penalty imposition.
2. Applicability of Mens Rea for Imposition of Penalty:
The assessee contended that the provisions of section 221 were different from section 271(1)(a), which was considered by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Travancore Agency. The assessee's default was under section 221, read with section 201(1). The argument was that penalty under section 201(1) could only be levied if the Assessing Officer proved the default. The CIT(A) wrongly confirmed part of the penalty by relying solely on section 221.
3. Interpretation of Sections 201(1), 201(1A), and 221(1) of the Income-tax Act:
The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions:
- Section 200 mandates timely payment of deducted tax to the Central Government.
- Section 201(1) deems a person who fails to deduct or pay tax as an assessee in default.
- Section 201(1A) imposes interest for delay in payment.
- Section 221(1) allows for penalty in addition to arrears and interest, provided the default was without good and sufficient reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the proviso to section 201(1) places the burden on the Assessing Officer to prove the default was without good and sufficient reasons, while the second proviso to section 221(1) requires the assessee to prove the default was for good and sufficient reasons.
4. Assessment of Good and Sufficient Reasons for Delay:
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for delay-clerical oversight and preoccupation with other matters-insufficient. Negligence was not considered a good and sufficient reason for default in statutory obligations. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's observation in Gujarat Travancore Agency that proving default in compliance with the statute is generally sufficient unless the statute indicates the need to establish mens rea.
5. Quantum of Penalty:
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the default was not for good and sufficient reasons. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 1,50,000.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalty under section 221 of the Income-tax Act but reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 1,50,000, providing partial relief to the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 90
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the correct head of income for the rental income received by the assessee-trust.
2. Applicability of Section 22 (Income from house property), Section 28 (Income from business or profession), and Section 56 (Income from other sources) of the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the Correct Head of Income for the Rental Income Received by the Assessee-Trust
Background:
The assessee-trust was created on 13-12-1982 and took on lease a partly constructed property, completed its construction, and rented it out to the Post and Telephone Department, earning rental income. The trust initially showed this income as "income from property."
CIT's Invocation of Section 263:
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, invoked Section 263 for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, setting aside the assessments due to insufficient inquiry into the nature of the lease agreement and the funds used for construction. The ITAT Ahmedabad Bench "C" confirmed this order.
Assessing Officer's Findings:
Upon de novo assessment, the Assessing Officer concluded that since the assessee was not the owner of the property, the income could not be assessed under Section 22. He observed that the trust's activities indicated a business intent to sublet the property for profit, thus categorizing the income as business income under Section 28.
CIT(A)'s Decision:
The CIT(A) held that:
- The income could not be taxed under Section 22 as the assessee was not the owner.
- The assessee-trust was not carrying on any business activity; therefore, the income could not be assessed under Section 28.
- The income should be assessed under Section 56 as "Income from other sources."
Arguments from Both Sides:
- Revenue's Argument: The learned DR argued that the activity of completing construction and renting out the property constituted a business activity, thus the income should be assessed as business income.
- Assessee's Argument: The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the income should be assessed as "Income from house property" and not as business income, citing various case laws.
2. Applicability of Section 22, Section 28, and Section 56 of the Income-tax Act
ITAT's Analysis:
- Section 22 (Income from house property): The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that the income could not be assessed under Section 22 as the assessee was not the owner of the property. The lease deed described the assessee as a "tenant" and the other party as a "landlord," indicating that the assessee did not hold ownership rights.
- Section 28 (Income from business or profession): The ITAT concluded that the income should be assessed under Section 28 as business income. The trust deed empowered the trustees to invest in various ventures, including the lease and development of properties. The trust's activities of taking on lease a partly built property, completing its construction, and letting it out to the Telephone Department constituted commercial exploitation of an asset. The ITAT referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corpn. (P.) Ltd., which held that such activities could be considered business activities.
- Section 56 (Income from other sources): The ITAT disagreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to assess the income under Section 56. The ITAT emphasized that the residuary head of income (Section 56) could only be applied if none of the specific heads were applicable. Since the income could appropriately fall under Section 28 as business income, it could not be assessed under Section 56.
Distinguishing Case Laws:
The ITAT noted that the facts of the cases cited by the assessee's counsel were distinguishable:
- In Kanaiyalal Nimani's case, the assessee was considered the owner of the stalls during the lease period.
- In Smt. T.P. Sidhwa's case, the assessee became the full owner of the property.
- In Saiffuddin's case, the assessee and his brothers bore the construction expenses, indicating ownership.
- In D.R. Puttanna Sons (P.) Ltd.'s case, the ownership of the structure remained with the lessee.
Final Judgment:
The ITAT held that the income derived by the assessee from letting out the building to the Telephone Department is assessable under the head "Income from business" under Section 28 and not under Section 22 or Section 56. The ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s finding and allowed the Revenue's appeals while dismissing the cross-objections filed by the assessee.
-
1995 (9) TMI 89
Issues Involved:
1. 100% depreciation on gas cylinders/tankers.
2. 40% depreciation on 10 trucks.
Detailed Analysis:
1. 100% Depreciation on Gas Cylinders/Tankers:
The first issue pertains to the 100% depreciation allowed by the CIT(A) on gas cylinders/tankers, which was initially disallowed by the AO. The assessee company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of Sodium Metal Chlorina and Chemicals, claimed depreciation at 100% on ammonia gas transportation tankers based on Item No. III F(4) of the depreciation schedule. The AO disallowed this claim, asserting that only ammonia tankers, not gas cylinders, were purchased as per the relevant bill dated 24th Jan., 1985. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim, and the Revenue appealed against this decision.
The Tribunal noted that a similar claim for 100% depreciation on gas cylinders/tankers transporting hazardous ammonia gas had been allowed in the case of Mysore Ammonia Supply Corpn. vs. ITO. The learned Departmental Representative conceded this point, merely relying on the AO's order. Following the precedent set by the Tribunal in the Mysore Ammonia Supply Corpn. case, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) rightly allowed 100% depreciation on gas cylinders/tankers in favor of the assessee.
2. 40% Depreciation on 10 Trucks:
The second issue involves the 40% depreciation claimed by the assessee on 10 trucks, which the AO disallowed for 8 out of the 10 trucks. The AO observed that only two trucks were actually used by the end of the accounting year, and thus allowed depreciation only for those two trucks. The remaining 8 trucks were not considered for depreciation as they were not put to actual use during the relevant period.
The CIT(A) reversed the AO's decision, allowing depreciation on all 10 trucks. The CIT(A) considered that the trucks were ready for use, having obtained fitness certificates and registration from the RTO and licenses under the Indian Explosives Act before the end of the accounting year. The CIT(A) also noted that the trucks were handed over to Mehta Carriers, Bombay, under an agreement, indicating readiness for use.
The Revenue appealed against this finding, arguing that the words "used for the purpose of business" in s. 32(1) of the Act imply actual use, not merely readiness for use. The learned Departmental Representative cited the Supreme Court decision in Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that "used for the purpose of business" means enabling the owner to carry on the business and earn profits. The Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. also emphasized actual, effective, and real user in the commercial sense.
The Tribunal examined the arguments and the agreement between the assessee and Mehta Carriers. It found that the trucks were not used for business as required by the relevant statutory provisions and judicial interpretations. The Tribunal noted that no profits were earned from the 8 trucks, and thus, the condition of actual use was not met. Accordingly, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and upheld the AO's order, disallowing depreciation for the 8 trucks.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal partially, confirming the disallowance of depreciation for the 8 trucks by the AO. The cross-objection of the assessee, supporting the CIT(A)'s order, was partly allowed to the extent of the 100% depreciation on gas cylinders/tankers.
............
|
9911796707
