Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1981 1981 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 61 to 80 of 185 Records

• 1981 (7) TMI 125
  
  Issues:
  1. Applicability of section 4(1A) of the Wealth Tax Act to the assessee.
  2. Whether the assets received from the maternal grandfather constituted HUF property.
  3. Correct application of section 4(1A) to the HUF status of the assessee.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The revenue challenged the finding of the AAC regarding the applicability of section 4(1A) of the Wealth Tax Act to the assessee. The assessee, claiming to be the karta of the HUF, had inherited properties from the maternal grandfather. The WTO initially held that the assets were thrown into the family hotchpot, making the status that of HUF. However, the WTO applied section 4(1A) to exclude a portion of the wealth, leading to an appeal by the assessee to the AAC of Income-tax.
  
  2. The AAC categorically found that the assets received from the maternal grandfather constituted HUF property. He held that section 4(1A) could not be applied to the HUF, and thus, no part of the wealth should have been excluded. The AAC enhanced the net wealth by amounts excluded by the WTO under section 4(1A), leading to the revenue's appeal.
  
  3. The department argued that the property received should be treated as separate property of the receiver, citing Mulla's Hindu Law. The counsel for the assessee argued that the affidavit filed merely stated the property was enjoyed as joint family property, supporting the AAC's decision. The Tribunal found that the property received by the minor assessee from the maternal ancestor remained individual property until blending into the HUF could occur, which did not happen before the relevant date. The Tribunal concluded that section 4(1A) could not be applied to the HUF status granted by the WTO, upholding the AAC's decision for different reasons.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming that section 4(1A) was not applicable to the HUF status of the assessee. The Tribunal clarified the incorrect application of the provision by the WTO and upheld the AAC's decision based on different legal grounds.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 124
  
  The appeal was filed by the assessee against the AAC's order denying exemption under s. 6(ii) of the WT Act r/w s. 10(4A) of the IT Act for a deposit of Rs. 2,02,795. The assessee had deposited the amount under the foreign remittance scheme. The Tribunal found that the WTO should have granted the exemption, and the AAC should have considered the legal position. The order of the AAC was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. (Case: Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur, Citation: 1981 (7) TMI 124 - ITAT Jaipur)

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 123
  
  Issues:
  Appeal against deletion of addition under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal was made by the revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 25,000 under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had made purchases from K.B. Enterprises, and the ITO disallowed Rs. 25,000 as cash payment under section 40A(3). However, during the appeal process, it was revealed that the actual disallowance should have been Rs. 40,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition of Rs. 5,000 as it did not qualify for exemption under rule 6DD(j). The revenue challenged this decision in the appeal.
  
  The main argument presented was that the disallowance under section 40A(3) pertains to the expenditure incurred in the year for which cash payment was made, regardless of when the payment was made. The departmental representative contended that the disallowance should be based on the year in which the expenditure was incurred, not the year of payment. The proviso to section 40A(3) allows for rectification of assessment orders if cash payments are discovered later. The counsel for the assessee, however, supported the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
  
  Upon examination, it was clarified that section 40A(3) focuses on disallowing the expenditure incurred in the year when cash payment was made. The timing of the payment is not the determining factor for disallowance. The ITO has the authority to disallow such payments even after the assessment is completed. The Commissioner (Appeals) misunderstood the section and wrongly allowed relief to the assessee. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside.
  
  Although the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the applicability of rule 6DD(j) to the payments made in 1975, the judgment highlighted the necessity for such a determination. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to evaluate whether the payments made in 1975, totaling Rs. 35,000, qualified for deduction under section 40A(3) considering the conditions specified under rule 6DD(j).
  
  In conclusion, the departmental appeal was treated as allowed, and the matter was referred back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a detailed decision on the eligibility of the payments made in 1975 under section 40A(3) in compliance with rule 6DD(j).

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 122
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the treatment of income derived from converted property.
  2. Allowability of expenditure incurred by the assessee in executing a new lease agreement with tenants before applying provisions of section 64(2).
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The case involved an appeal by an individual assessee regarding the treatment of income derived from a house property that was converted into a joint family property after a specific date. The key issue was the interpretation of section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with the inclusion of income in the hands of an individual. The assessee argued that only the real income accruing to him should be included, not the notional income. Reference was made to various court decisions emphasizing the inclusion of actual income rather than notional income. The departmental representative contended that section 64(2) does not allow for a change in the computation of income and does not authorize deductions not otherwise allowable under the Act.
  
  2. The tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides. It referred to a Bombay High Court case where the court held that deemed income under a specific section did not cover such income for taxation purposes. The tribunal noted that the computation of income under each head should be done first, followed by the application of section 64(2). The tribunal emphasized that the word "income" in section 64(2) should be interpreted consistently with other sections of the Act. It rejected the assessee's argument that capital expenditure should be deducted before applying section 64(2) as it would distort the language of the section. Additionally, a Madras High Court decision was referenced, supporting the calculation of net wealth in the hands of the transferee before inclusion in the transferor's hands under a different section.
  
  In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that the income derived from the converted property should be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, and the deductions claimed by the assessee could not be allowed before applying section 64(2).

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 121
  
  Issues:
  Late filing of wealth-tax returns leading to penalty imposition under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Background and Penalty Imposition:
  - The appeals involved four instances of late filing of wealth-tax returns by two different assessees, leading to penalties imposed by the WTO under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
  - The assessees cited reasons for the delay, mentioning that they sought extensions due to non-availability of details from the firm where they held capital assets.
  
  2. AAC Confirmation of Penalties:
  - The AAC confirmed the penalties imposed by the WTO, stating that filing an application for extension without reasonable grounds does not excuse the delay in filing returns.
  - The AAC rejected arguments regarding the validity of penalty proceedings initiation, emphasizing that penalties were justified even if self-assessment tax was paid after filing returns.
  
  3. Specific Observations on Penalties:
  - For one of the assessees, the AAC cancelled a penalty for a specific assessment year where an extension had been granted before the return was filed, but upheld penalties for other years.
  - The AAC dismissed the penalty appeal for the other assessee, as no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the wealth-tax return was provided.
  
  4. Legal Arguments and Court's Decision:
  - During the hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessees argued that the delay was due to the non-finalization of accounts in the firm where they held partnership interests.
  - Reference was made to a decision by the M.P. High Court regarding reasonable cause for late filing of returns in income-tax proceedings, which the court found inapplicable to the present case under the Wealth Tax Act.
  - The court held that the assessees, being partners in the firm with their wealth tied to capital assets there, had valid reasons for the delay and were prevented by sufficient cause from filing returns on time.
  - Noting that the WTO did not indicate in assessment orders the initiation of penalty proceedings, the court concluded that the penalties were unjustified, especially considering the assessees' efforts to file for extensions and lack of conscious disregard for their obligations.
  
  5. Final Decision:
  - Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessees, canceling all penalties imposed by the WTO for the late filing of wealth-tax returns for the respective assessment years.
  - The court allowed the appeals filed by both assessees, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the penalties and the valid reasons presented for the delays in filing the returns.
  
  This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal arguments, court decisions, and reasoning behind the cancellation of penalties for late filing of wealth-tax returns in the case.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 120
  
  Issues:
  - Disallowance of commission paid to Mrs. R.M. Engineer
  - Disallowance of travelling expenses
  
  Disallowance of Commission Paid to Mrs. R.M. Engineer:
  The appeal was against the AAC's confirmation of disallowances made by the ITO regarding commission paid to Mrs. R.M. Engineer. The ITO noted discrepancies in the commission payments and the lack of evidence supporting the payments. The ITO observed that Mrs. R.M. Engineer had not actually received any commission as per her statement, and the assessee himself admitted that no commission had been paid to her. The ITO further found inconsistencies in the accounts related to the commission payments. The AAC upheld the disallowance, stating that the agreements between the assessee and Mrs. R.M. Engineer lacked genuineness due to the appellant's ignorance about the financial affairs. However, the ITAT found substance in the appeal. Upon reviewing the agreements and statements, the ITAT concluded that the ITO misread the statements made by Mrs. R.M. Engineer and the assessee. The ITAT found that Mrs. R.M. Engineer had indeed facilitated business dealings for the assessee, contradicting the ITO's observations. The ITAT noted that the commission amount was credited to her account, and the agreements supported the commission payments. Therefore, the ITAT deleted the disallowance of commission payments.
  
  Disallowance of Travelling Expenses:
  Regarding the disallowance of travelling expenses, the ITO disallowed a portion of the claimed expenses as he deemed them personal in nature. The AAC confirmed a disallowance of Rs. 2,000 out of the total claimed expenses. However, the ITAT disagreed with the AAC's decision. The ITAT noted that the assessee maintained vouchers for all expenses and that the ITO did not question the verifiability of the expenses. Therefore, the ITAT reduced the disallowance of travelling expenses from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000. Overall, the ITAT partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, overturning the disallowance of commission payments to Mrs. R.M. Engineer and reducing the disallowance of travelling expenses.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 119
  
  The assessee appealed against the AAC's order confirming an addition in the trading account due to low GP rate. ITO added Rs. 10,000 after applying a GP rate of 9%. ITAT found no interference warranted, deleted the addition, and allowed the appeal. (Case: Appellate Tribunal ITAT INDORE, Citation: 1981 (7) TMI 119 - ITAT INDORE)

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 118
  
  Issues:
  1. Status of the assessee as HUF or individual
  2. Addition made by the ITO in trading account
  3. Claim of depreciation and setoff of losses
  4. Validity of assessment under s. 144B
  5. Income earned by the assessee's wife
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. The primary issue in this case was the status of the assessee, whether as an individual or as a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The assessee claimed to be assessed as HUF based on property received through a settlement deed made by his father. The ITO, however, considered the property to be the deceased father's own property and not ancestral HUF property. The ITO referred to legal precedents to support the status of the assessee as an individual. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the settlement deed and legal decisions, held in favor of the assessee, recognizing the property as HUF property. The Tribunal also cited a decision by the Indore Bench supporting the HUF status.
  
  2. Another issue involved additions made by the ITO in the trading account due to the assessee's failure to maintain proper books of accounts. The ITO estimated income from printing and sale of paper based on past records and applied net profit rates. The ITO also made adjustments for depreciation and setoff of losses, including short term capital gains from the sale of machinery and a plot of land. The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the ITO's calculations and upheld the additions made in the trading account.
  
  3. The validity of the assessment under s. 144B was challenged by the assessee, claiming the income variance in the draft order did not exceed the threshold for invoking s. 144B. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting the significant difference in estimated income and upholding the ITO's use of s. 144B for assessment.
  
  4. Regarding the income earned by the assessee's wife from the sale of a plot of land, the Tribunal ruled that since the assessee was recognized as an HUF, the income could not be added to the assessee's individual income under s. 64 of the IT Act. Therefore, the income earned by the wife was not considered as part of the assessee's taxable income.
  
  5. Ultimately, the appeal by the assessee was partly allowed by the Tribunal, with decisions made in favor of the assessee regarding the HUF status and the income earned by the wife. The Tribunal upheld the additions made in the trading account and the validity of the assessment under s. 144B.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 117
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of the effect of adoption on the deceased's estate
  - Determination of the share of the deceased in joint family properties post-adoption
  - Application of proviso (c) to s. 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
  - Consideration of joint family property rights in adoption cases
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment in this case revolves around the question of whether the deceased's estate was divested due to adoption and the subsequent impact on the share of joint family properties. The deceased had adopted a boy under a deed, leading to a claim that only half of the deceased's share in joint family properties passed on his death. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty rejected this claim, citing s. 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which states that adoption does not divest the estate vested in the deceased. On appeal, it was argued that the adopted son had become a coparcener, making the property coparcenary property. The commentary to proviso (c) in Mulla's Hindu Law supported the view that adoption does not abrogate joint family property rights.
  
  The judgment considered the commentary's illustrations, emphasizing that adoption does not affect self-acquired property but impacts ancestral property, making it coparcenary property. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty accepted the accountable person's claim based on this interpretation. The Departmental Representative relied on the proviso (c) to s. 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to argue against divesting the deceased's estate. However, the judgment upheld the accountable person's claim, noting that the previous Wealth-tax assessment order recognized the deceased as part of a joint family, further supporting the claim that the property in question was joint family property.
  
  Ultimately, the departmental appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision that only half of the deceased's share in the joint family properties passed on his death. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the impact of adoption on property rights and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions in such cases.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 116
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the Income Tax Officer (ITO) can change the status declared by the assessee in the return filed by him.
  2. Whether there was a "Body of Individuals" (BOI) in the instant case.
  3. Whether the amounts disallowed by the ITO represented the income that accrued to the "BOI".
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether the ITO can change the status declared by the assessee in the return filed by him:
  The Tribunal examined whether the ITO has the authority to change the status declared by the assessee in their tax return. The assessee had filed returns in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), while the ITO assessed it as an Association of Persons (AOP). The Tribunal referenced several rulings, including the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Ridhkaran's case, which held that the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) was not competent to assess individuals in a different status without serving notice. However, the Tribunal noted that this case involved returns filed voluntarily, not in response to notices, and thus the ruling did not apply. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in N.V. Narendranath v. CWT, which demonstrated that the status declared by the assessee could be changed by appellate authorities if the status returned was erroneous. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the ITO could change the status declared by the assessee, answering this question against the assessee.
  
  2. Whether there was a "BOI" in the instant case:
  The Tribunal then considered whether the correct status of the assessee was a BOI or AOP as determined by the ITO. The term "BOI" is not defined in the Income-tax Act, but various High Courts have attempted to define it. The Tribunal referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Deccan Wine & General Stores v. CIT, which stated that not every combination of persons can be called a "BOI" and that they must combine to engage in an activity with a common design to produce income. The Tribunal found that in the instant case, there was a partial partition in the family of Sunku Subbalakshmaiah, which was accepted by the ITO. After the partition, Sunku Subbalakshmaiah took over the business and carried it on himself, agreeing to pay his sons a share of the annual profits. The Tribunal concluded that there was no unity of interest or common design to produce income for the benefit of all, and thus no BOI existed. Therefore, the status given by the assessee as HUF was correct.
  
  3. Whether the amounts disallowed by the ITO represented the income that accrued to the "BOI":
  The Tribunal noted that the AAC had found the correct status as HUF and had deleted the additions made by the ITO on the ground that the amounts did not form part of the income of the assessee, being a smaller HUF. The Tribunal agreed with the AAC's conclusion, stating that the payments made to the sons for retaining their share of capital in the business constituted business expenditure and were admissible deductions. The interest paid to the sons on amounts standing to their credit was also considered business expenditure. Since the Tribunal found that no BOI existed and the business was carried on by the HUF, there was no need to consider whether the income accrued to the BOI. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, concluding that the AAC's decision was correct.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision that the correct status of the assessee was HUF, and the amounts paid to the minor sons were admissible deductions as business expenditure.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 115
  
  Issues:
  - Deduction under section 16(1) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad-A revolved around the deduction under section 16(1) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78. The primary contention was regarding the allowance of Rs. 3,500 claimed by the assessee for expenses related to the maintenance, upkeep, and running of a motor-car attributed to personal use. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially rejected this claim, leading to an appeal by the assessee.
  
  Upon appeal, the assessee argued that the expenses for the car were reimbursed under a scheme known as Scheme III, where the Officer was allowed reimbursement subject to certain conditions. The assessee claimed that the expenses allowed by the employer were for the discharge of duties and produced evidence to support this claim, including salary certificates and mileage statements submitted for reimbursement. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) noted that the ITO had already accepted the amounts paid to the appellant by the employer as exempt under section 10(14).
  
  The AAC further referred to a CBDT circular stating that an assessee should not be denied relief under section 16(1) if the allowance received is a reimbursement of actual expenses incurred. Therefore, the AAC directed the ITO to allow full deduction under section 16(1) for all the years under consideration based on the evidence provided by the assessee.
  
  The Department, aggrieved by the AAC's decision, filed an appeal before the Tribunal, arguing that the motor car was used for both official and personal purposes by the employee. However, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing that the reimbursement received by the assessee was for expenses actually incurred in the performance of duties. The Tribunal also cited a previous decision to support its conclusion that the assessee was entitled to the full deduction under section 16(1).
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the AAC's order to allow full deduction under section 16(1) for all assessment years under consideration based on the evidence presented by the assessee and the relevant legal provisions and precedents cited during the proceedings.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 114
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Reopening of Assessment
  2. Determination of Taxable Gift
  3. Valuation of Goodwill
  4. Valuation of Land and Building
  5. Applicability of Transfer of Property under Gift Tax Act
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Reopening of Assessment:
  The assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 was originally made on 12th October 1972, determining the taxable gift at Rs. 65,000 after allowing statutory exemption. The Gift Tax Officer (GTO) later reopened the assessment under section 16(1) of the Gift Tax Act, issuing a notice to the assessee.
  
  2. Determination of Taxable Gift:
  The GTO examined three documents: an agreement dated 15th April 1971, a deed of dissolution dated 22nd November 1971, and a release deed dated 10th March 1972. He concluded that the assessee had foregone an amount of Rs. 9,67,015, which constituted a gift. The Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals) [CGT (A)] upheld this conclusion, stating that there was a disposition within the meaning of section 2(xxiv)(b) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, as elucidated by the Supreme Court in CGT, Madras vs. N.S. Getti Chettiar.
  
  3. Valuation of Goodwill:
  The GTO valued the goodwill at Rs. 3,18,536, with the assessee's half share at Rs. 1,59,268. The Commissioner did not interfere with this valuation, stating that the business was lucrative, earning profits ranging from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4.5 lakhs per year.
  
  4. Valuation of Land and Building:
  The GTO referred the value of the land and buildings to the Valuation Officer, who arrived at Rs. 22,50,000. The Commissioner reduced this to Rs. 12.76 lakhs, considering a transaction of sale by one Narsamma at Tilak Road. The Tribunal, however, compared the property with the Tajmahal Hotel property and determined the value of the land at Rs. 68 per sq. yd., totaling Rs. 7,88,800, and confirmed the value of other structures at Rs. 2,10,000.
  
  5. Applicability of Transfer of Property under Gift Tax Act:
  The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT, which clarified that upon dissolution of a firm, there is no transfer of property but a mutual adjustment of rights. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's share in the firm's property was indeterminate before dissolution, and hence, there was no transfer of property or disposition as defined under section 2(xxiv) of the Gift Tax Act.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal held that there was no taxable gift within the meaning of the Gift Tax Act. The appeal was allowed, and the reassessment was canceled. The Tribunal also provided directions for the valuation of the property and goodwill if computation of the value of the gift was to be made.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 113
  
  Issues:
  1. Challenge to the first appellate consolidated order regarding valuation of property.
  2. Interpretation of the retrospective effect of sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act.
  3. Inclusion of value of gold ornaments set apart for a minor in the hands of the assessee.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. The Appellant challenged the first appellate consolidated order concerning the valuation of a property located at Bhagwandas Road, Jaipur for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. The Appellant contended that the lower authorities erred in not accepting the value determined by the ITAT for the previous assessment year and in determining the fair market value of the property for the relevant years. The Appellant also disputed the inclusion of the value of gold ornaments set apart for a minor in the assessment.
  
  2. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act, which provides an option to assess the value of self-occupied property based on specific criteria. The Appellant argued that this provision should have retrospective effect from the assessment year mentioned in the sub-section. The Departmental Representative contended that the provision was substantive and not procedural, thereby rejecting the Appellant's claim for retrospective application.
  
  3. Regarding the inclusion of the value of gold ornaments set apart for a minor, the Appellant argued that the setting apart should be considered equivalent to a transfer, entitling the assessee to an exemption. However, the Tribunal, based on previous findings and the nature of ownership transfer, upheld the decision to include the value of the ornaments in the assessment of the assessee.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, modifying the consolidated order to reflect the retrospective application of sub-section (4) of Section 7 for determining the property value. However, the decision to include the value of gold ornaments set apart for the minor in the assessment was upheld based on established legal principles and previous findings.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 112
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Omission to record sales for December 1974.
  3. Voluntary Disclosure Scheme.
  4. Explanation and behavior of the assessee.
  5. Role and responsibilities of the chartered accountant.
  6. Gross negligence and mens rea.
  7. Reconciliation of quantitative statements.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The primary issue in this case is whether the penalty of Rs. 1,08,084 levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is justified. The assessee argued that the omission to record sales for December 1974 was an honest mistake and not a deliberate act of concealment.
  
  2. Omission to Record Sales for December 1974:
  The assessee failed to post sales amounting to Rs. 1,39,789 for December 1974 in the sales account. The sales were recorded in the sales register but not transferred to the ledger. The ITO pointed out this omission and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee contended that this was a bona fide mistake and not an intentional act to suppress income.
  
  3. Voluntary Disclosure Scheme:
  The assessee made a disclosure of Rs. 80,000 under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, claiming it covered the omission. However, the ITO found discrepancies and concluded that the remaining Rs. 59,789 represented concealed income. The ITO assessed the total income at Rs. 2,03,040, allowing a deduction for the disclosed amount.
  
  4. Explanation and Behavior of the Assessee:
  The assessee argued that the omission was due to an honest mistake and that the books of account were given to the chartered accountant for preparation of statements and returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this explanation, considering it a deliberate attempt to suppress turnover. The assessee's subsequent behavior, including the voluntary disclosure and cooperation with the ITO, was highlighted to support the claim of an honest mistake.
  
  5. Role and Responsibilities of the Chartered Accountant:
  The assessee contended that the chartered accountant also failed to notice the omission, indicating that it was an inadvertent mistake. The Commissioner (Appeals) inferred that the sales register was not produced before the chartered accountant, a conclusion based on the auditor's report. The Tribunal found this inference incorrect, noting that the quantitative statements appended to both the original and revised returns showed consistency, suggesting that the sales register was indeed before the chartered accountant.
  
  6. Gross Negligence and Mens Rea:
  The revenue argued that the assessee was guilty of gross negligence, if not deliberate concealment, and thus liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal referred to the Kerala High Court's decision in CIT v. Gujarat Travancore Agency, noting that mens rea need not be established but the circumstances must indicate an attempt to conceal income. The Tribunal found that the omission was not a result of gross negligence but an inadvertent mistake, as the assessee had taken reasonable steps to avoid such errors.
  
  7. Reconciliation of Quantitative Statements:
  The quantitative statements for yarn and cloth dealt with by the assessee showed substantial consistency between the original and revised returns. This consistency indicated that the sales register was considered during the preparation of the original return, supporting the claim of an honest mistake.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal concluded that the omission to post sales for December 1974 was an inadvertent mistake and not a deliberate act of concealment. The assessee had taken reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, including entrusting the preparation of statements to a chartered accountant. The penalty of Rs. 1,08,084 levied by the ITO and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was canceled, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 111
  
  Issues:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Controller to make reassessment under section 58(3) read with section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The accountable person filed an appeal against the order of the Appellate Controller, Ernakulam. The issue revolved around the commencement of reassessment proceedings beyond the statutory limit of three years from the original assessment date. The accountable person argued that the reassessment was initiated by the notice under section 59 issued on 28-8-1974, exceeding the three-year limit from the original assessment date of 31-7-1971. They relied on legal precedents to support their contention that the notice to the accountable person is crucial for the commencement of proceedings (paragraphs 2-3).
  
  The department contended that the direction to issue the notice under section 59 on 10-5-1974 by the Assistant Controller was sufficient to commence the reassessment proceedings within the statutory limit. They argued that no specific pre-reopening enquiry was necessary, and the Controller's satisfaction to reopen sufficed. Legal precedents from tax laws were cited to support this argument (paragraph 4).
  
  The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 59 and compared them with similar provisions in income tax laws. It emphasized that for reassessment proceedings to commence, the Controller must actively requisition an account from the accountable person after entertaining reasons for reassessment. This active step is essential for the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 59 (paragraphs 5-6).
  
  The Tribunal disagreed with the department's reliance on precedents related to income tax laws, highlighting the distinct requirements under the Estate Duty Act for reassessment proceedings to commence. The decision emphasized the necessity of communication to the accountable person for the proceedings to be considered initiated (paragraph 7).
  
  Further, the Tribunal discussed the requirement of communication to the assessee for the commencement of reassessment proceedings, drawing parallels with legal interpretations from relevant cases. It concluded that the reassessment in question was barred by limitation as the proceedings were not validly commenced within the statutory limit, leading to the cancellation of the reassessment (paragraphs 8-10).
  
  Finally, as the reassessment was deemed invalid, the Tribunal did not consider the other grounds raised in the appeal, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the accountable person (paragraphs 11-12).

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 110
  
  Issues:
  1. Disallowance of interest paid to HUFs of partners under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  2. Addition of salary paid to partners without considering reasonableness under section 40A(2) of the Act.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance of interest paid to HUFs under section 40(b):
  The case involved two second appeals challenging the orders passed by the AAC in relation to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The firm, constituted of three partners, had interest paid to the HUFs of the partners disallowed by the ITO under section 40(b) of the Act. The AAC upheld this disallowance, considering the interest paid to HUFs as part of the firm's income. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this approach, citing precedents and the interpretation of the law. The Tribunal held that interest paid to the HUFs of partners cannot be considered as paid to the partners themselves for the purpose of disallowance under section 40(b). It was established that while a Karta of an HUF may be a partner in a firm, the HUF entity itself cannot be a partner. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of Rs. 8,718 and Rs. 6,175 in the respective years should be deleted from the firm's assessment.
  
  Issue 2: Addition of salary to partners under section 40A(2):
  The second issue pertained to the addition of Rs. 18,000 as salary paid to the partners without considering whether the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable under section 40A(2) of the Act. The Tribunal referenced a previous order in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1974-75 and rejected the addition based on the arguments presented in that order. By aligning with the previous decision, the Tribunal rejected the addition of Rs. 18,000 in each of the two years. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed based on the findings related to both issues.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, primarily on the grounds that interest paid to the HUFs of partners cannot be equated to payments made to the partners themselves for the purpose of disallowance under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the addition of salary paid to partners in the absence of a determination of excessiveness or unreasonableness under section 40A(2).

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 109
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Refusal of registration to the appellant firm under Section 185(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  2. Determination of whether the appellant firm was a genuine partnership or a benami (bogus) concern of another firm.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Refusal of Registration to the Appellant Firm:
  
  The Income Tax Officer (ITO) refused registration to the appellant firm, M/s Bansal Carriers, under Section 185(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITO's decision was based on the suspicion that the firm was a benami concern of M/s Miri Mal Gian Chand (MMGC). The ITO argued that the appellant firm did not have its own independent identity and was merely a continuation of MMGC's business. The ITO noted that the lady partners did not make any capital contributions and were not actively involved in the business, thus considering them as "sleeping partners." Additionally, the ITO pointed out that the business premises, telephone, and other resources were shared between the appellant firm and MMGC, further supporting the benami claim. The ITO concluded that the firm was not genuine and refused registration.
  
  2. Determination of Whether the Appellant Firm was Genuine or Benami:
  
  The primary issue was whether the appellant firm was a genuine partnership or a benami concern of MMGC. The appellant firm argued that it was a legitimate partnership formed by a separate partnership deed and had its own independent identity. The firm contended that the ITO's decision was based on mere suspicion without any substantial evidence. The appellant firm highlighted that the three common partners between MMGC and the appellant firm had different profit-sharing ratios, indicating distinct entities. The firm also argued that the non-contribution of capital by some partners did not necessarily make the firm bogus.
  
  The Tribunal examined the statements of the lady partners and Kewal Krishan, one of the partners, and found that the ITO's conclusion was based on assumptions and not on concrete evidence. The Tribunal noted that the lady partners asserted their active involvement in the business, and there was no indication that they were benami partners. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving that the firm was a benami concern was on the revenue, which failed to provide substantial evidence.
  
  The Tribunal also considered the fact that the appellant firm and MMGC were constituted by separate partnership deeds, and the validity of these deeds was not challenged. The Tribunal rejected the ITO's argument that the continuation of the ESSO contract in MMGC's name invalidated the appellant firm's business. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant firm was a genuine partnership and not a benami concern of MMGC.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal held that the appellant firm was entitled to registration under Section 185(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the ITO to accord registration to the firm and recorded a positive finding that the revenue failed to prove that the firm was a benami concern. The appeal was allowed, and the ITO's and AAC's orders were set aside.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 108
  
  The appeal involved two points:
  1. Car expenditure and depreciation: Disallowance by ITO was not necessary as the managing partner made sufficient disallowance for personal use. Disallowance made by ITO was deleted.
  2. Expenditure connected with Income-tax proceedings: Disallowance of Rs. 5,193 was deleted as it was a business expenditure falling under section 37 of the IT Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 107
  
  Issues:
  1. Disallowance of initial depreciation on machine tools and alternative claim for development rebate for the assessment year 1975-76.
  2. Disallowance of motor car expenses and depreciation for the assessment year 1975-76.
  3. Relief under section 35B and deduction under section 80VV for the assessment year 1976-77.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance of initial depreciation on machine tools and alternative claim for development rebate for the assessment year 1975-76:
  The assessee claimed initial depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) for machine tools. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim stating that the machineries were purchased after a specified date. The dispute centered around whether the machineries qualified as machine tools for the purpose of claiming depreciation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) upheld the ITO's decision. The assessee contended that Hacksaw and Bandsaw blades manufactured by them qualified as machine tools. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the interpretation of machine tools by the revenue was narrow and that the assessee was entitled to initial depreciation on the machineries. The alternative claim for development rebate was not considered due to the decision on initial depreciation.
  
  Issue 2: Disallowance of motor car expenses and depreciation for the assessment year 1975-76:
  The second ground of appeal was related to the disallowance of motor car expenses by the ITO due to personal use by directors. The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance, considering past disallowances for similar reasons. The ITAT agreed with the CIT (A) and upheld the disallowance of motor car expenses and depreciation. The decision was based on the reasonable nature of the disallowance and consistency in past treatment.
  
  Issue 3: Relief under section 35B and deduction under section 80VV for the assessment year 1976-77:
  Regarding the assessment year 1976-77, the appeal raised concerns about relief under section 35B and deduction under section 80VV. The CIT (A) clarified that the claim under section 35B was limited to specific expenditure and not pressed further. The ITAT declined to interfere with this decision. In the case of deduction under section 80VV, the ITO had disallowed a portion of the claim, which was upheld by the CIT (A). However, the ITAT allowed the deduction after considering that the expenditure on consultation was not part of the proceedings before the IT authorities and should be allowed under section 37 of the IT Act. The ITAT granted the assessee a further deduction as claimed.
  
  In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeals for both assessment years, making decisions on various grounds related to depreciation, motor car expenses, relief under specific sections, and deductions, based on detailed analysis and legal interpretations.

  ---

• 1981 (7) TMI 106
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether Smt. Koshalya Bai could be held 'Benamidar' of another partner, Shri Gopi Lal.
  2. Whether Smt. Koshalya Bai was a partner in the firm in her independent capacity.
  3. Whether the ITO was justified in refusing registration to the firm.
  4. Whether the AAC was correct in directing the ITO to grant registration to the firm for the assessment year 1976-77.
  5. Whether the AAC was correct in allowing the continuation of registration to the assessee firm for the assessment year 1977-78.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether Smt. Koshalya Bai could be held 'Benamidar' of another partner, Shri Gopi Lal:
  The ITO refused registration to the firm for the assessment year 1976-77 based on the following findings:
  - Smt. Koshalya Bai did not contribute any capital initially and the Rs. 10,000 she later deposited was a gift from Shri Gopi Lal, suggesting she did not contribute her own capital or skill.
  - She was made a partner by reducing the share of another partner, Shri Vikya Mal.
  - She made contradictory statements about the source of the Rs. 10,000 gift, indicating a lack of genuine ownership of the capital.
  - She lacked business knowledge and skills, suggesting she was essentially a housewife and not an active partner.
  
  The AAC, however, held that the department did not discharge the onus of proving that Smt. Koshalya Bai was a Benamidar of Shri Gopi Lal. The AAC emphasized that the reduction in profit share affected only Shri Vikya Mal, not Shri Gopi Lal, and that there was no fixed capital contribution required in the partnership deed. The AAC also noted that Smt. Koshalya Bai's capital account showed withdrawals for personal expenses, indicating she enjoyed the profits independently.
  
  2. Whether Smt. Koshalya Bai was a partner in the firm in her independent capacity:
  The AAC concluded that Smt. Koshalya Bai was a partner in her own right, based on her statements and the absence of any material evidence suggesting she was a Benamidar. The AAC relied heavily on her statement that the gift was given out of natural love and affection and that she used the profits for household expenses, not for Shri Gopi Lal.
  
  3. Whether the ITO was justified in refusing registration to the firm:
  The ITO's refusal was based on the belief that Smt. Koshalya Bai was a Benamidar of Shri Gopi Lal, as she did not contribute any initial capital or skill and received the Rs. 10,000 as a gift from Shri Gopi Lal. The ITO argued that the partnership was not genuine as she lacked business acumen and the financial capability to bear losses.
  
  4. Whether the AAC was correct in directing the ITO to grant registration to the firm for the assessment year 1976-77:
  The AAC directed the ITO to grant registration, asserting that the department failed to prove that Smt. Koshalya Bai was a Benamidar. The AAC's decision was based on the view that the partnership was genuine, with all necessary ingredients of a valid partnership present, including the sharing of losses.
  
  5. Whether the AAC was correct in allowing the continuation of registration to the assessee firm for the assessment year 1977-78:
  The AAC allowed the continuation of registration for the assessment year 1977-78, as the initial refusal for 1976-77 was overturned. The AAC held that since the firm was genuine and Smt. Koshalya Bai was an independent partner, the firm was entitled to the benefits of continued registration.
  
  Separate Judgments:
  - Majority Opinion: The majority held that Smt. Koshalya Bai was a Benamidar of Shri Gopi Lal, and hence, the firm was not entitled to registration under section 185 of the IT Act. They concluded that the partnership was a sham arrangement to divert profits.
  - Dissenting Opinion: One member disagreed, asserting that Smt. Koshalya Bai was a genuine partner in her own right, having received the gift legitimately and using the profits independently. This member believed the ITO was not justified in refusing registration, and the AAC's decision to grant registration was correct.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeals were allowed in favor of the revenue, reversing the AAC's order and restoring the ITO's decision. The matter was referred to a third member of the Tribunal due to the difference in opinion among the members on whether Smt. Koshalya Bai was a Benamidar and whether the firm was entitled to registration.

  ---

12345678........ 10