|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 98 Records
-
1978 (5) TMI 59 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... O right from very beginning when the said sub-partnership came into existence. As discussed above, these assessment orders are final. They are not on protective basis. Atleast there is no material on record from which it could be said successfully that share of profit which were allotted to Smt. Chunnibai on the basis of the sub-partnership were really enjoyed by Shri Chandmal Modi as Karta of the HUF. 46. Looking to the aforesaid facts, entirety of circumstances including the additional evidence and hard facts of life, in our opinion, the share income earned by Smt. Chunnibai in respect of years on the basis of sub-partnership could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee. So the Income which was earned by Smt. Chunnibai on the basis of sub-partnership deed in question should be excluded from the assessment of assessee in all the years under consideration. 47. For the reasons discussed above the appeals will have to be allowed. In the result all the appeals are allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 58 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... o account the interest received by her as a partner. Thereafter the net income from this source was to be determined after adjusting the interest paid on the borrowed money which she had invested in the firm. The resultant loss could only be considered for inclusion in the total income of the assessee under s. 64(1)(i). With regard to the resultant loss, the authorities below had held that it was not liable to be included in the total income of the assessee. That being the position, it was not permissible in law to include in the assessment the net income from interest. However, as we have held above that the share of loss of the assessee rsquo s wife is to be included in the total income of the assessee, this issue loses its importance. 20. As we have held above that the share of loss of the assessee rsquo s wife is to be included in the total income of the assessee, we direct the Income Tax Officer to modify the assessment accordingly. 21. In the result the appeal succeeds.
-
1978 (5) TMI 57 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ence between the actual cost and the written down value of an asset. In the present case, the written down value under s. 43(6)(b) of the I.T. Act,1961. means the actual cost to the assessee less depreciation actually allowed and not any notional allowance that might be permissible under the section. Since no depreciation was actually allowed to the assessee in the past, the written down value of the truck at the beginning of the year was only the purchase price i.e. Rs. 18,000. Since the excess between the actual cost and the written down value in this case was Nil, no profit under s. 41(2)of the IT Act 1961 could be charged in the hands of the assessee. In taking the above view, we rely on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT, U.P. vs. Tirath Prakash(1) and Badri Prasad Jagan Prasad vs. CIT, U.P.(2). The addition of Rs. 4,500 towards the total income of the assessee as profit under s. 41 (2) is accordingly, deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 56 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ithin that meaning. The Supreme Court further held that having regard to the nature of the word houses as used in taxing legislations and municipal legislation and the nature and purposes of the statute it is manifest that the legislature used the word houses so that the village panchayat would be in a position to levy taxes on all buildings situated in the village. The rule makers made no distinction between the dwelling houses and buildings. We see no reason why we should not apply the ration of the Supreme Court decision to the facts of the present case. In view of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the contention of Mr. Swamy must succeed. In the view that we have taken, it is not necessary for us to go into the other contentions. The whole value of the factory building including the value of the site should, therefore, be exempt in terms of s. 5 (1) (iv) of the Act. 3. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 55 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... n asset called goodwill equal to the amount of excess so that the case may not fall within the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in B.M. Kharwar rsquo s case referred to supra. On these facts, neither it can be said that in the case of the assessees who are partners in the firm, there was a transfer of their interest in the goodwill to the private limited company so that the amount received can be taxed as capital gains, nor can it be said that in the case of the firm there has been an acquisition of a capital asset, namely goodwill, on the transfer of which there is liability to capital gains tax because goodwill being a self-generated asset costing nothing to the firm, could not be termed as capital asset for the purpose of s. 45. On neither count can there be any levy of capital gains tax. 18. For the above reasons, we see no merit in the assessments made by the Department on the assessees in regard to capital gains and we accordingly allow that assessee rsquo s appeals.
-
1978 (5) TMI 54 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... he Revenue to prove conclusively that the income from the aforesaid lorry actually belonged to the assessee. The fact that the said lorry is registered in the name of the younger brother also, in our view, will go a long way to support the submission of the assessee that the lorry in question actually belonged to his younger brother. In other words, the explanation given by the assessee before the authorities below as regards the gift cannot be said to be totally unreasonable. In such circumstances, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali (3) would apply. It is now settled law that no penalty can be levied by simply rejecting the explanation given by the assessee. The Revenue has to prove independently that the additions made by the ITO actually represent the income of the assessee. In the absence of any such evidence, we have to hold that no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) would be leviable. In the result, the order levying penalty is here by concealed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 53 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... y reasons for filing the application for registration late. But when the assessee had filed the return showing the status as a firm, it would only be reasonable to assume that there could have been a Bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that the correct status of the assessee for this year would be that of a registered firm. If that be so, we are of the view that no penalty would be leviable under s. 271(1) (a) of the Act. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into account we hold that late filing of the application for registration should not be taken as a ground for rejecting the contention raised by the assessee that there was a Bona fide belief that the correct status for this year would be that of a registered firm. Taking this aspect into account, we are of the view that no penalty would be leviable under s. 271(1) (a) of the Act for this year. In the result, we direct that the penalty levied by the ITO should be cancelled. 5. The appeal is allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 52 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ion. The question as to whether the assessee is not entitled to relief under s. 80L in respect of the interest on bank deposits in a case where the assessee has no positive income by way of interest is a debatable issue on which there can be conceivably be two different views. The allowance of deduction under s. 80L in the original assessment cannot, therefore, be considered as a mistake apparent form record, which could be rectified under s. 154. The ratio of the decision of the of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (4) squarely applies to the present case. The assessee rsquo s appeal for the assessment year 1973-74 has to be allowed on that ground also. 8. In the result, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1973-74 is allowed and the order of the ITO under s. 154 of the IT Act, is cancelled. The appeal for the assessment year 1975-76 is also allowed and the ITO is directed to modify the assessment so as to allow relief under s. 80L to the assessee.
-
1978 (5) TMI 50 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... licable would be the law of the year in which the return was due and that the default in this regard would not be considered as a continuous default. The Tribunal had observed in that case as follows As regards the law applicable for calculating the amount of penalty, however, we consider that there was force in the contention of the assessee that the law in force prior to1st April, 1968should be applied. For this we draw support from the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in CWT,Hyderabadvs. R.D. Chand (2) reported and alsoPunjaband Harayana High Court decision in Suresh Sethi vs. CIT (3). The penalty for the period of delay in the filing of the return for this year shall be calculated accordingly. Respectfully, following the same, we direct that in the matter before us also penalty for the period of delay in both the years shall be calculated accordingly, that is, as per the law obtaining in the relevant year of default. 6. In the result, the two appeals are partly allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 49 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... er whose net wealth assessable for the asst. yr. exceeds Rs. 1 lac. In the present case both the members of the bigger Hindu undivided family of Jabba Lal have formed their own smaller Hindu undivided families who have been assessed separately to wealth tax. In our opinion the word Member in cl. (1A) extracted above relates to individual member and cannot cover the case of a smaller Hindu Undivided Family. We, therefore, reject the Departmental Representative s contention that the said clause applies to the facts of the present case. In our opinion, the higher rate of tax prescribed by cl. (1A) can be charged only if an assessee s case squarely falls within the four corners of this clause. The present case is not covered by the said clause as no member of the bigger Hindu Undivided Family is assessable in his individual capacity to wealth of more than Rs. 1 lac. For these reasons, we decline to interfere with the order of the AAC. 4. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 48 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... ement was not considered to be essential for allowing the claim. In the case before us, we find that the bulk of the assessee s income comes from a share in the partnership firm which is engaged in business. Admittedly, the Karta was the only adult male member who was looking after the family affairs including its business. There is no dispute that this amount was actually paid. We also find that the Karta rendered services to the assessee-family in looking after the business of the latter. A sum of Rs. 500 per month cannot, in our opinion, be said to be excessive or unreasonable considering the share income of the assessee-family and the efforts put in by the Karta to manage the affairs of the family. Respectfully following the decision in the case of the S.A.P. Annamalai (1), we hold that the salary of Rs. 6000 claimed by the assessee was admissible. We direct that the said amount be allowed in computing the assessee s total income. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 47 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... ssed to A care of B, then the real addressee remains A and the service on B does not under the Code of Civil Procedure amount to service on A unless it can be shown that B after receipt of the letter actually handed it over or informed its contents to A in which case service on A becomes effective when it was handed over or when its contents were communicated. We find support for this view in the decisions of Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif(6) and Smt. Lalit Kapur(7). The fact that there is a possibility of the postman serving the notice not on the real addressee but on a wrong person is recognised in the case of Nataraj Iyer vs. Nacharammal(8) wherein it was held that where service is disputed, service of summons by post cannot be held to be sufficient to sustain an exparte decree. 16. For the above reasons, we hold that the impugned penalty order was not justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and so we cancel the same. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 46 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... y basis we are of opinion that for each year Rs. 1,000 should be allowed as the collection charges. 4. The next point in the recomputation is the disallowance of 10per cent of the interest received under s. 57. Here also it may not be possible to hold that the entire expenses have to be disallowed. We will hold that the assessee would be entitled to atleast 5per cent as a deduction. 5. But the main point which appears to have been overlooked by the ITO is that under s. 11(1)(b) the income applied to charity is to be deducted and only the balance which is not applied to charity and which is not covered by Form No. 10 could be brought to tax. Any re-computation of income which has overlooked this point is certainly erroneous. Since we do not have the figures ready to show the amount of income actually expended for charity in the accounting years concerned we direct the ITO would allow such income as a deduction under s. 11(1)(b). 6. The departmental appeals are partly allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 45 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... alary. I have to remember that tax cannot be imposed by implication and that common-sense view cannot be abjured while construing taxing provisions (see the observations in the case of Sargaoson (Inspector of Taxes) vs. Roberts-76 ITR 269. 12. Thus when pension includes salary and when salary is exempt from taxation in the hands of the officials of United Nations, a fortiori, it could be held that recompense of the amount received by the beneficiary a as result of the contribution by her husband should not come within the purview of the concept of salary or pension. 13. Besides as per Tribunal s decision mentioned supra, pension received by that assessee from United Nations was held to be exempt, a fortiori, it applies to a beneficiary also because two different meanings to a word cannot be given one for purposes of taxation and the other for purposes of exemption. 14. Thus I confirm the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and dismiss the Departmental appeals.
-
1978 (5) TMI 44 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... retention with the agriculturists or with the ginning factory etc. Without any of these details, to compare the yield of cotton in one assessee s case with that of another either for the same year or for different years would, in our opinion, be nothing but preposterous. In the case before us we have no information as to the quality of cotton from year to year in the assessee s case, the place from where they are purchased, the time of the year when they are purchased, the state of wetness or otherwise, the extent of dust included therein etc. all of which are factors affecting the yield. Even from a purely theoretical point of view, it would not be possible for anyone much less the ITO to say that yield of cotton in the previous year relevant to the Asst. yr. 1973-74 in the assessee s case should be not 37.6 per cent but something more. For this reason also no addition can be sustained. 5. The Departmental appeal is dismissed. The cross objection by the assessee is allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 43 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... evant assessment year would be asst. yr. 1971-72. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention raised by the Revenue and upheld the conclusion reached by the AAC that the impugned amounts was not liable to tax in the Asst. yr. 1972-73. At the same time I am unable to agree with the AAC that the impugned amount was not assessable in the preceding assessment year. These observations are not germane to the assessment year under appeal and in my view the AAC clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in making the above observations. In other words, once the AAC reached the conclusion that the impugned amount was not liable to tax during the assessment year under appeal, it was not open to him to make any observations which related to the assessability of the amount in the preceding assessment year. These observations are considered unnecessary for disposal of the appeal and consequently they are held not to be in order. 6. Subject to the above charkham the appeal is dismissed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Penalty - Imposition of on the firm and Managing Partner - Validity ... ... ... ... ..... 112(a) of the Act, the extreme contention that a penalty is not imposable both on the firm and also on the Managing Partner thereof, cannot sustain. But he took his stand that neither the show cause notice, nor the charge against the appellants had referred to any abetment as mentioned in Section 112(a) of the Act as against the second writ petitioner so as to justify imposition of a penalty under the terms of the said clause. The show cause notice issued as such, is not before us and in the absence of specific complaint before the authorities or before the learned Judge about the absence of jurisdiction or power to impose a penalty both against the firm and against the partners, we have our Limitations, for the first time to entertain this aspect of the matter in writ appeal. 4. We see no ground to interfere with this part of the award of the departmental authorities or the judgment of the learned Judge sustaining the same. We dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
-
1978 (5) TMI 41 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Packing - Re-packing of pre-Budget stock - Effect ... ... ... ... ..... elapur factory the product was in a condition which can be termed as ready for delivery . At the Mulund factory further packing in smaller units is undertaken and this according to the petitioner would not constitute manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Government of India accept the plea of the petitioners and observe that repacking in this case was done for convenience of sale and as the product in question was already in a formulated condition and hence ready for delivery , the quantity so received from Belapur Unit can be regarded as pre-Budget Stock. The Revision Application is accordingly allowed.
-
1978 (5) TMI 40 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Licensing - Refrigerating Machinery - Cooling coil - Limitation - Section 40(2) - Applicability
-
1978 (5) TMI 39 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Gullies - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... g under Central Excise Tariff Item 26A. It is not an item prescribed in the tariff. 3. Central Excise Tariff Item 26A speaks of copper and copper alloys in any crude form including ingots, billets etc. Gullies are definitely copper and copper alloys in crude form they fall under Central Excise Tariff Item 26A. However, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, Government of India reduce the amount of penalty to Rs. 10/- only.
|
