|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 210 Records
-
1989 (5) TMI 143
Issues:
- Valuation of stock at market rate on dissolution of a firm
- Assessment of unrealized profit on closing stock of finished goods
- Interpretation of retirement deed and settlement of accounts between partners
- Application of Madras High Court decision in A.L.A. Firm's case
- Relevance of revaluation of properties at prevailing market value
- Justification of bringing the difference between book value and market value to assessment
Analysis:
The case involves a departmental appeal against the deletion of an addition made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) regarding the valuation of stock at market rate on the dissolution of a firm. The assessment year in question is 1982-83, with the relevant previous year ending on 30-9-81 when the firm was dissolved. The primary issue is whether the stock should be valued at market rate as per the decision of the Madras High Court in the A.L.A. Firm's case. The ITO had valued the closing stock of finished goods at market rate, resulting in an addition of Rs. 24,088 to the assessment.
The assessee contended that there was no transfer of assets on dissolution, citing the Supreme Court decision in Malabar Fisheries Co. case. The Commissioner (A) agreed with the assessee, holding that the transfer of closing stock was merely a distribution of assets among partners and not a sale generating profits. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the stock should be valued at market rate on dissolution, as per relevant court decisions and ITAT judgments.
The Tribunal found in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the Madras High Court's ruling in A.L.A. Firm's case that stock-in-trade retains its nature even on dissolution. The Tribunal held that the ITO was justified in re-valuing the closing stock at market rate and bringing the difference to assessment. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the stock had already been valued at market rate during settlement, as it was not supported by evidence or raised at earlier stages. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the departmental appeal and restored the addition of Rs. 24,088 to the assessment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the revaluation of the closing stock at market rate on the dissolution of the firm, in line with the Madras High Court's decision. The judgment highlights the importance of accurately valuing stock on dissolution and assessing any unrealized profits arising from such valuations.
-
1989 (5) TMI 135
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the application under Section 146 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The effect of non-disposal of the application under Section 146 within the stipulated time.
3. Applicability of the limitation period under Sections 153(2A) and 153(3)(i) for making a fresh assessment.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Application under Section 146:
The assessee contended that an application under Section 146 was filed on 20-2-1982 to reopen the assessment made under Section 144. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) did not dispose of this application, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] did not mention this in his order. The assessee argued that the application should be deemed to have been allowed as per the decision in Third ITO v. Mohammedbhai Hasanally [1984] 9 ITD 57 (Mad.).
2. Effect of Non-disposal of the Application under Section 146:
The Tribunal affirmed that the application under Section 146, filed on 20-2-1982, should have been disposed of within 90 days, i.e., by 20-5-1982. Since this was not done, following the precedent set in Mohammedbhai Hasanally's case, the application is deemed to have been allowed in the assessee's favor.
3. Applicability of Limitation Period under Sections 153(2A) and 153(3)(i):
The central issue was whether the reassessment was barred by the limitation period under Section 153(2A). The assessee argued that the reassessment should have been completed by 31-3-1985, two years from the end of the financial year in which the application under Section 146 was deemed to have been allowed. The Tribunal, however, noted that Section 153(3)(i) allows a reassessment at any time if an application under Section 146 is allowed. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Section 153(2A) apply only to cases where a written order under Section 146 is passed, not where the application is deemed to have been allowed due to inaction by the ITO.
Conclusion:
1. Deemed Allowance of Application: The application filed by the assessee under Section 146 on 20-2-1982 is deemed to have been allowed on 20-5-1982 due to non-disposal within the 90-day period.
2. Limitation Period: The reassessment is not barred by the limitation period under Section 153(2A) because this provision applies only when a written order is passed under Section 146. Instead, Section 153(3)(i) applies, allowing the reassessment to be made at any time.
3. Reassessment Validity: The CIT(A) did not err in directing a reassessment, as the limitation had not set in by the time of his order.
Final Judgment:
The appeal is allowed in part, affirming that the application under Section 146 is deemed to have been allowed and that the reassessment can be made at any time under Section 153(3)(i).
-
1989 (5) TMI 134
Issues: Liability under Gift-tax Act, Transfer of property without consideration, Declaration of trust, Ownership of funds, Transfer of property to trust, Gift-tax assessment
In this case, the primary issue is the denial of liability to be assessed under the Gift-tax Act by the assessee, who is a sanyasi and the Mattadhipathi of a Mutt. The assessee received offerings, including money, from devotees, which he deposited in a bank account and later declared a trust with a portion of the funds for charitable purposes. The Gift-tax Officer treated these receipts as income of the Mattadhipathi, leading to a gift-tax assessment. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the assessment, considering it as a transfer of property without consideration. The subsequent appeal raised the question of whether the monies received belonged to the assessee and if there was a transfer of property to the trust. The revenue argued that the trust was an independent entity to which the amounts were transferred without consideration, justifying the gift-tax assessment. However, the appellate tribunal analyzed the nature of the offerings made by devotees and the declaration of trust by the assessee to determine ownership and transfer of property.
The tribunal noted that when devotees make offerings to a sanyasi, it constitutes a dedication of the property for religious purposes, which is considered a gift without the need for formal acceptance. The tribunal referred to judicial precedents recognizing the customary position of sanyasis accepting offerings for specific purposes without becoming the owners of the funds. The tribunal emphasized that the assessee merely held the funds in trust for the intended charitable purposes, and the trust deed was a vesting declaration rather than a transfer of property. Citing legal principles from previous cases, the tribunal concluded that the assessee did not own the funds and did not transfer any property to constitute a gift. The tribunal highlighted that the application of funds for charitable purposes by the assessee was expenditure, not a gift. Therefore, the tribunal annulled the gift-tax assessment, deeming it baseless and untenable, and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
-
1989 (5) TMI 133
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for machinery used in sand blasting.
Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Investment Allowance under Section 32A for Sand Blasting Machinery
Background and Assessee's Claim:
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in interior decorating and industrial painting, claimed an investment allowance of Rs. 52,027 for an Air Compressor used in sand blasting during the assessment year 1983-84. The firm argued that sand blasting is a scientific method of surface treatment essential in the manufacturing process, thereby qualifying for the investment allowance under section 32A.
Income-tax Officer's Rejection:
The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim, stating that the assessee merely used the Air Compressor for treating metal and did not produce or manufacture any articles as specified in section 32A. The ITO concluded that the assessee did not meet the criteria for investment allowance.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Decision:
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) overturned the ITO's decision, holding that sand blasting is an integral part of the manufacturing process. The CIT(A) found that the machinery was used for industrial painting and surface treatment, thus qualifying for the investment allowance. The CIT(A) directed the ITO to allow the assessee's claim.
Department's Appeal:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the assessee must be an industrial undertaking and the machinery must be used for the construction, manufacture, or production of any article or thing. The Revenue contended that the assessee only processed articles manufactured by others and did not produce any marketable article or thing, thus not qualifying for the investment allowance.
Assessee's Defense:
The assessee's counsel presented evidence, including affidavits, certificates from customers, and literature on sand blasting, to demonstrate that sand blasting is a manufacturing process. The counsel argued that the assessee's activities met the criteria for investment allowance as the process added significant value to the products.
Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the materials and submissions from both parties. It found that sand blasting is indeed a part of the manufacturing process, as supported by affidavits, certificates, and technical literature. The Tribunal noted that the products after sand blasting were commercially more valuable, thus constituting a manufacturing activity.
Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal referred to several legal precedents:
- Madras High Court in CIT v. Perfect Liners: The court held that the term 'manufacture' should be understood broadly, and processes like polishing castings qualify for development rebate.
- Special Bench in ITO v. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd.: The Tribunal held that leasing companies could claim investment allowance if the machinery was used for specified purposes.
- Sri Balaji Metal Finishers v. ITO: The Tribunal held that job works like electroplating qualify for investment allowance if the machinery is used in the manufacturing process.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's sand blasting activities qualified as manufacturing under section 32A. The machinery was used in the manufacturing process, and the assessee met the criteria for investment allowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Final Judgment:
The assessee-firm is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A for the Air Compressor used in sand blasting. The appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, confirming the order of the CIT(A).
-
1989 (5) TMI 129
Issues:
1. Whether the trust is a discretionary trust and liable to be assessed under s. 164 of the Act on maximum marginal rates.
Analysis:
The main issue in this appeal was whether the trust in question is a discretionary trust and should be taxed at maximum marginal rates under s. 164 of the Act. The trust deed, executed in 1983, outlined three beneficiaries: Shri Shanti Kumar Chordia, his wife, and their eldest son. The authorities contended that since Shri Shanti Kumar was not married at the time of the trust deed, and their son was born after the relevant period, the trust was discretionary and subject to maximum marginal rates, as per Expln. 1 to s. 164.
The assessee argued that the shares were specific, beneficiaries were known, and even unborn children could be beneficiaries. Citing various legal precedents, the assessee contended that the trust was specific, and beneficiaries were already assessed for the income. The Departmental Representative, however, relied on the trust deed's provisions and the sequence of events regarding the beneficiaries' status at the time of execution.
The Tribunal analyzed the trust deed clauses and concluded that there was no discretion given to the trustees regarding income distribution. The relevant clauses specified the income shares for Shri Shanti Kumar, his wife, and their son, without any room for discretion. The Tribunal dismissed the possibilities highlighted by the authorities, emphasizing the absence of trustee discretion in income distribution.
The Tribunal further delved into legal precedents, such as the Allahabad High Court's ruling on trustees entering partnerships on behalf of trusts and the Madras High Court's decision on trusts benefiting prospective wives or unborn children. Considering the facts and legal arguments presented, the Tribunal held that the trust was specific, and income should be assessed in the beneficiaries' hands. The Tribunal also noted that the alternative argument raised by the assessee was not addressed by the authorities and hence did not require consideration.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling in favor of the specific nature of the trust and directing income assessment in the hands of the respective beneficiaries.
-
1989 (5) TMI 127
Issues:
1. Valuation of construction cost for a factory shed.
2. Addition of unexplained investment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO).
3. Confirmation of the addition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).
4. Denial of opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
5. Errors in the Departmental Valuation Officer's report.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a private limited company engaged in manufacturing that constructed a factory shed. The ITO referred the matter to the Valuation Cell due to a perceived low cost declared by the assessee. The Valuation Officer estimated the construction cost higher than the declared amount. The ITO added the difference as unexplained investment, which the assessee objected to, citing a valuation certificate from an Approved Valuer and maintaining complete vouchers for construction expenses.
2. The ITO's addition of the unexplained investment was upheld by the CIT(A), prompting the assessee to appeal. The assessee argued extensively, referencing relevant decisions and reports of valuers. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was determined ex parte by the CIT(A) due to the absence of the assessee during the hearing. The Tribunal considered the objections raised by the assessee regarding the denial of an opportunity for a fair hearing.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the grounds presented by the assessee, emphasizing that the ITO did not explicitly reject the assessee's books of account before referring the matter to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal also highlighted errors in the Valuation Officer's report, such as the omission of personal supervision charges and inaccuracies in electrification expenses. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of unexplained investment was not justified based on the facts and relevant legal principles.
4. The Tribunal further pointed out that the ITO had corrected an error in the amount of the addition through a subsequent order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and deleting the addition of unexplained investment. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere difference in estimated value and actual cost cannot be automatically treated as the assessee's income.
5. In summary, the Tribunal's judgment favored the assessee, highlighting procedural errors, discrepancies in the valuation reports, and the lack of justification for the addition of unexplained investment by the tax authorities. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of proper assessment procedures and adherence to legal principles in determining tax liabilities.
-
1989 (5) TMI 125
Issues:
1. Cancellation of penalties under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) by the AAC.
2. Assessment of total income and penalties levied by the ITO.
3. Absence of the assessee during assessment and penalty proceedings.
4. Contention of the Departmental Representative regarding the genuineness of cash credits and source of investments.
5. Consideration of evidence and burden of proof in penalty proceedings.
6. Analysis of penalties under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).
Analysis:
1. The AAC had canceled penalties of Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 10,133 imposed by the ITO under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 1977-78, leading to the Department appealing against the decision.
2. The assessment revealed discrepancies in the income reported by the assessee, with the total income assessed at Rs. 41,275, including net business income, initial capital investment, credits in the name of four persons, and income from undisclosed sources utilized for household expenses.
3. The assessee failed to adequately participate in the assessment proceedings, appearing before the ITO initially but later remaining absent during subsequent hearings, resulting in an ex parte assessment and initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).
4. The Departmental Representative contended that the assessee did not substantiate the genuineness of cash credits and the source of investments, alleging income suppression. The Department emphasized the importance of providing explanations during penalty proceedings and criticized the AAC for accepting verbal submissions without supporting evidence.
5. The Tribunal emphasized the connection between assessment and penalty proceedings, stating that evidence from the former serves as prima facie proof of concealment, which the assessee must rebut satisfactorily. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations inadequate, as mere verbal submissions and absence of concrete evidence failed to disprove concealment allegations.
6. The Tribunal upheld the restoration of the penalty of Rs. 10,133 under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the ITO, citing the assessee's failure to provide substantial evidence to counter the concealment charges. However, the penalty of Rs. 4,000 under section 271(1)(b) was deemed unsustainable due to vague descriptions in the ITO's order regarding non-compliance with notices, leading to its cancellation by the AAC.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed one appeal and dismissed another, reinstating the penalty under section 271(1)(c) while maintaining the cancellation of the penalty under section 271(1)(b) based on procedural deficiencies in the ITO's order.
-
1989 (5) TMI 124
Issues:
Interconnected appeals regarding assessment orders for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, involving the constitution of a firm, change in previous year, grant of registration, and interpretation of relevant sections of the IT Act.
Analysis:
1. The appeals involved two interconnected matters - one by the assessee-firm against the CIT's order for the assessment year 1980-81 and the other by the Department against the AAC's order regarding grant of registration for the assessment year 1981-82.
2. The facts revolved around the constitution of two separate firms, changes in partnerships, and the observation of previous years ending on Diwali. The CIT considered the assessment for 1980-81 erroneous, leading to the direction for a de novo assessment based on the change in firm constitution.
3. The assessment for 1981-82 was challenged due to the ITO's view on the constitution of the new firm, leading to a protective assessment. The AAC directed the ITO to allow registration, which was appealed by the Department.
4. The controversies primarily centered around the interpretation of sections 187, 188, and 189 of the IT Act, specifically regarding changes in firm constitution and the distinction between a change and the constitution of a new firm.
5. The High Courts had differing opinions on whether general partnership law principles apply to the construction of section 187. The Supreme Court's decision in Wazid Ali Abid Ali vs. CIT clarified that section 187 should be construed in light of the Partnership Act, 1932.
6. The Tribunal found that the case involved a dissolution of the firm, settlement of accounts, and closure of account books, indicating a new firm rather than a mere change in constitution. Therefore, the Commissioner's view on the assessment for 1980-81 was deemed unsustainable.
7. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's order regarding the assessment for 1981-82, stating that the new firm had indeed come into existence, and the applications for registration were not premature. The ITO should have allowed registration to the new firm.
8. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed one appeal and dismissed the other, based on the findings related to the constitution of the firm and the correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the IT Act and Partnership Act.
-
1989 (5) TMI 123
Issues: Valuation of property under Rent Control Act, valuation of bus shed, levy of interest under sections 53(3) and 70(2) of the ED Act
Valuation of Property under Rent Control Act:
The appeal involved the valuation of a building under the Rent Control Act. The accountable person admitted the building's value at Rs. 24,000, while the Asstt. CED fixed it at Rs. 50,000, later reduced to Rs. 40,000 by the Appellate Controller. The property was let out at a daily rent of Rs. 5, and the Rent Control Act applied to the area. The Tribunal determined that the rent capitalization method with a multiple of 8-1/2 times was appropriate for valuation. If the value arrived at was less than Rs. 24,000, the accountable person's value would prevail. The Tribunal modified the Appellate Controller's order accordingly.
Valuation of Bus Shed:
The dispute also concerned the valuation of a bus shed on a site of 1,288 sq. yds. The Inspector suggested a market value for the site and plinth area, leading to a valuation of Rs. 95,000 by the Asstt. Controller, later reduced by Rs. 5,000 by the Appellate Controller. The Tribunal noted that the wealth-tax records accepted the shed's value at Rs. 15,000, purchased for Rs. 6,000 in 1960. As the Revenue had accepted this value for wealth-tax purposes, there was no justification for increasing it to Rs. 90,000 based on the Inspector's report. The Tribunal modified the Appellate Controller's order in favor of the accountable person.
Levy of Interest under Sections 53(3) and 70(2) of the ED Act:
Regarding the levy of interest under sections 53(3) and 70(2) of the ED Act, the accountable person disputed the interest levied under both sections. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions and case laws cited by both parties. It held that the accountable person had the right to appeal against the levy of interest, particularly when the interest exceeded the prescribed rate. The Tribunal directed the Asstt. Controller to reduce the interest to 6% per annum. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the levy of interest under section 70(2) of the ED Act, noting that it should only arise after a notice of demand is issued, not at the assessment stage. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the levy of interest under section 70(2).
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modifying the valuation of the property and bus shed, and directing the reduction and deletion of interest levied under sections 53(3) and 70(2) of the ED Act, respectively.
-
1989 (5) TMI 122
Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263.
2. Merits of the case regarding the provision for excise duty liability.
Detailed Analysis:
Assumption of Jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263:
The primary contention raised by the assessee was that the assessment order dated 23-8-83, which was passed under sections 143 and 144B for the assessment year 1980-81, had merged into the appellate orders of the CIT(A) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee argued that since the assessment order had merged, there was no existing order that could be revised by the CIT under section 263. The assessee relied on the Allahabad High Court's decision in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 344 to support this argument.
However, the CIT negated this objection by referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 144, which stated that the doctrine of merger is not of rigid and universal application. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order and the scope of the statutory provisions conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The CIT also relied on various High Court decisions, including those from Gujarat, Bombay, and Madhya Pradesh, to support the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263.
The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, agreed with the CIT's stance, stating that the learned CIT had full authority to exercise his powers under section 263. The Tribunal noted that the question of the correctness of the allowance of excise duty liability was neither raised before the appellate authorities nor considered by them. Therefore, the CIT had the necessary powers to pass orders under section 263 on this question. The Tribunal concluded that there was no full merger of the ITO's order with that of the ITAT, and thus, the CIT was within his rights to revise the order.
Merits of the Case Regarding the Provision for Excise Duty Liability:
On the merits, the assessee contended that the provision for excise duty liability amounting to Rs. 1,59,505 was correctly made and should be allowed as a deduction. The assessee argued that the provision was based on two show-cause notices issued by the Central Excise authorities dated 7-9-79 and 10-8-80, which indicated a short payment of excise duty.
The CIT, however, held that the show-cause notices did not create a liability unless and until appropriate orders were passed by the concerned authorities. The CIT also noted that the assessee did not provide for the entire amount indicated in the show-cause notices, suggesting that the assessee did not consider the show-cause notices as creating a liability.
The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts, held that the provision of Rs. 1,59,505 was correctly made towards additional excise duty liability. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained its accounts on a mercantile system, and the liability to pay excise duty arises as and when the manufacture of the goods took place. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363, which held that a statutory liability could be claimed as a deduction even if the assessee denied its liability.
The Tribunal further observed that the show-cause notices issued by the excise department under Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, could be regarded as creating a demand for which a provision could be made. The Tribunal also referred to a similar case decided by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. Sylvania Laxman Ltd. [1984] Tax. 74(6)-124, where the provision for excise duty was allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT was wrong in holding that the ITO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The provision for excise duty was correctly made, and the deduction was rightly allowed by the ITO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 but ruled in favor of the assessee on the merits of the case regarding the provision for excise duty liability. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the CIT was set aside.
-
1989 (5) TMI 121
Issues:
1. Inclusion of the cost of air tickets received from manufacturers in the total income of the appellant.
The judgment addressed the issue of whether the sum of Rs. 20,206, representing the cost of air tickets received from two manufacturers of hot drinks, should be included in the total income of the appellant. The appellant contended that the receipt was of a casual nature and exempt from tax, and that the expenditure was incurred for acquiring knowledge about marketing liquor products and learning technical know-how. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) considered the receipt as a benefit or perquisite derived by the assessee but failed to address whether it should be considered as deductible or allowable expenditure. The ITO added the amount to the income of the assessee firm. However, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], the appellant stressed that the expenditure should be considered as allowable business expenditure. The CIT(A) found that the tours undertaken by the partners did not appear to benefit the business, as details of the visits and their impact on the business were not provided. Consequently, the claim for deduction of the amount was dismissed by the CIT(A).
The second appeal by the assessee contended that the ITO failed to consider whether the amount could be allowed as business expenditure, despite specific averments made in a letter to the ITO explaining the business purpose for incurring the expenditure. The appellant argued that the expenditure was essential for the trade and should be treated as casual or incurred in the course of business. The Tribunal considered the nature of the scheme where free air tickets were provided by manufacturers based on targeted sales. The Tribunal held that the receipt of the air ticket should be considered as a benefit under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also referenced a previous order where a similar case was considered as a perquisite. The main question was whether the amount should be considered as allowable business expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the visit to foreign countries was at the instance of the manufacturers, indicating a business purpose. The Tribunal held that 1/10th of the expenditure should be disallowed as representing expenditure for pleasure trips, while the remaining 9/10th should be allowed as business expenditure.
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed to the extent that 1/10th of the expenditure was disallowed as representing pleasure trips, while the remaining 9/10th was allowed as business expenditure.
-
1989 (5) TMI 120
Issues:
Interpretation of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves six appeals by a public limited company concerning the interpretation of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The company, engaged in passenger transport in Andhra Pradesh, had its assessments completed for the years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70. Initially, the claim for exemption under sec. 11 was not accepted, but after a legal battle, the corporation was granted the exemption by the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, the Income-tax Officer invoked sub-sec. (4) of sec. 11 to determine the income for the mentioned years based on certain additions to the income returned by the assessee.
The Income-tax Officer's computations involved disregarding certain additions to the income returned by the assessee and comparing the gross income from business with the income shown in the profit and loss account. The Officer made adjustments for various items, such as compensation to private operators, amounts written off, and contributions to funds. The appeals against these assessments were disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) in 1987.
Subsequently, the Commissioner invoked sec. 263 of the Act and directed the Income-tax Officer to withdraw certain deductions made in the assessments. The assessee challenged these orders, arguing that the application of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 11 was unwarranted as there was no tax evasion involved. The assessee contended that sub-sec. (3) of sec. 11 already addressed the non-application of income for charitable purposes.
After careful consideration, the tribunal held that the initiation of action under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 11 was not justified in this case. The tribunal emphasized that sub-sec. (4) was intended to uncover tax evasion through manipulation of account books, not for the application or expenditure of income by the business undertaking. The tribunal referenced a decision by the Calcutta High Court to support this interpretation.
The tribunal also referred to the speeches of the Finance Minister and other lawmakers to clarify the intent behind sub-sec. (4) of sec. 11. It was highlighted that the provisions were meant to address suppression of income or manipulation of accounts to conceal income. The tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of manipulation or tax evasion by the assessee in this case.
Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Income-tax Officer had wrongly compared gross income with net income and that the directions under sec. 263 were not in line with sec. 11(4). As a result, all the appeals by the assessee were allowed, and the directions under sec. 263 were quashed.
-
1989 (5) TMI 119
Issues:
1. Cancellation of penalty order by CIT(A) based on the demise of the Managing Partner as a reason for delay in filing the return.
2. Whether the delay in filing the return for the assessment year 1981-82 was justified due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee-firm.
3. Whether the Settlement Commission's pending determination for earlier years affected the filing of a correct return for the assessment year in question.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The departmental appeal was against the cancellation of a penalty order by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1981-82. The Managing Partner's death was cited as the reason for the delay in filing the return. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,572, finding no sufficient cause for the delay beyond a certain date. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty solely based on the demise of the Managing Partner, leading to the second appeal by the department.
2. The assessee-firm, an old firm, faced challenges after the sudden death of the Managing Partner, who handled all affairs. The firm approached the Settlement Commission for earlier years, pending a determination that affected filing the return for the assessment year in question. The advocate argued that the delay was justified due to the circumstances and lack of training for the other partners to handle the firm's affairs. Legal arguments were presented based on previous court decisions supporting the contention that the delay was reasonable given the situation.
3. The Tribunal considered the facts presented by the advocate, emphasizing the importance of the Settlement Commission's pending orders for earlier years in accurately filing the return for the assessment year 1981-82. The Tribunal accepted that the delay was justifiable considering the circumstances, including the seized account books and the need for accurate financial information from the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal concluded that there was no delay warranting a penalty under section 271(1)(a) and dismissed the appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty based on the reasons presented.
-
1989 (5) TMI 118
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Discrepancies in sales to M/s Lalji Mentha (P.) Ltd. and M/s Ishrat Chemicals.
3. Estimation of sales and gross profit rate.
4. Justification for the imposition of penalty for concealment of income.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Cancellation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The primary issue was whether the penalty of Rs. 11,658 levied by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1978-79 was justified. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had cancelled the penalty, noting that the addition was based on estimates and did not warrant a penalty. The CIT(A) observed that the nature of the addition, being related to estimates, did not call for the imposition of any penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Appellate Tribunal upheld this view, stating that normally, penalty could not be levied for additions made on estimates unless it could be shown that an element of concealment was positively involved.
2. Discrepancies in Sales to M/s Lalji Mentha (P.) Ltd. and M/s Ishrat Chemicals:
The ITO found discrepancies in the accounts of M/s Lalji Mentha (P.) Ltd. and M/s Ishrat Chemicals. The assessee had shown advances received from these parties, but the corresponding accounts showed that the transactions were completed, and the accounts were squared up. The ITO concluded that the assessee had concealed sales amounting to Rs. 84,940 and Rs. 27,000 respectively. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal later found that these discrepancies were not sufficient to justify separate additions for concealed sales, and they were instead included in the overall estimation of sales.
3. Estimation of Sales and Gross Profit Rate:
The ITO estimated the sales at Rs. 1.70 lakhs and applied a gross profit (G.P.) rate of 22%, leading to an addition of Rs. 14,951 for extra profit. The CIT(A) revised the sales estimate to Rs. 2.50 lakhs and applied a G.P. rate of 20%, resulting in a gross profit of Rs. 50,000. This led to an addition of Rs. 27,552. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this estimation, noting that the discrepancies in sales were addressed through the revised estimation of sales and gross profit.
4. Justification for the Imposition of Penalty for Concealment of Income:
The ITO imposed a penalty for concealment of income based on the discrepancies in sales and the subsequent estimation of higher sales and gross profit. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal, however, found that the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the discrepancies was bona fide and there was no specific material or finding to establish suppression or concealment. The Tribunal noted that the penalty could not be justified merely based on estimates unless there was clear evidence of concealment. The Third Member, while agreeing with the Judicial Member, emphasized that the explanation offered by the assessee was bona fide and there was no material to establish otherwise. The penalty was therefore rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
Separate Judgments Delivered:
The Judicial Member and the Accountant Member of the Tribunal delivered separate judgments. The Judicial Member held that the penalty was not justified, while the Accountant Member believed that the penalty should be upheld due to the positive evidence of suppressed sales. The matter was referred to the Third Member, who agreed with the Judicial Member, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.
Conclusion:
The appeal by the department was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty was upheld. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
1989 (5) TMI 117
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of entertainment expenses.
2. Disallowance of expenditure on temples.
3. Disallowance of rest house expenses.
4. Disallowance of farm land operation expenses in Bhutan.
5. Rejection of claim for deduction of sur-tax.
6. Disallowance of gratuity paid to directors.
7. Disallowance of capital loss on investment in shares of Maruti Ltd.
8. Charging of interest under sections 139(8), 215, and 216.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Entertainment Expenses:
The assessee, M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., claimed Rs. 3,01,181 as entertainment expenses, but the Income-tax Officer (ITO) allowed only Rs. 30,000 under section 37(2A), disallowing Rs. 2,71,181. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] did not accept the assessee's argument that humanitarian expenses should not be considered hospitality expenses. The CIT(A) also noted that the ITO had not examined the details and sent the matter back for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the ITO to check for employees' participation in the expenses and exclude those accordingly, referencing a previous Tribunal order.
2. Disallowance of Expenditure on Temples:
The assessee claimed Rs. 12,797 for temple expenses, which the ITO disallowed. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, stating the expenses were religious donations and not business expenses. The Tribunal noted that the temple in Lucknow was not proven to be within the factory premises and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing relevant case laws.
3. Disallowance of Rest House Expenses:
The assessee claimed Rs. 5,43,803.78 under section 37(4) read with section 37(5). The CIT(A) allowed Rs. 89,609 for depreciation and repairs but disallowed Rs. 4,54,195 for salaries, wages, and provisions. The Tribunal restored the matter to the ITO to ascertain if any part of the cost of provisions fell outside the ambit of guest house maintenance, following a similar direction from a previous year.
4. Disallowance of Farm Land Operation Expenses in Bhutan:
The ITO and CIT(A) disallowed Rs. 31,209 for farm land operation expenses in Bhutan. The Tribunal referred to its previous order for the preceding year and directed the ITO to ascertain the facts and nature of expenses and deal with the matter accordingly.
5. Rejection of Claim for Deduction of Sur-tax:
The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of sur-tax deduction based on decisions from the Calcutta and Karnataka High Courts. The Tribunal, agreeing with these decisions, confirmed that sur-tax paid by the assessee was not an admissible deduction.
6. Disallowance of Gratuity Paid to Directors:
The assessee paid Rs. 86,250 as gratuity to directors, which the ITO disallowed under section 40A(5). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, stating the payments were not in the nature of gratuity but fell within the ambit of section 40A(5). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the payments were salary as per Explanation 2 to section 40A(5).
7. Disallowance of Capital Loss on Investment in Shares of Maruti Ltd.:
The assessee claimed a capital loss of Rs. 10,01,000 on shares of Maruti Ltd., which the ITO disallowed, stating the final position on the realisability of the investment was undeterminable. The CIT(A) confirmed the ITO's decision. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting the proceedings before the Commissioner of Payments were not over and the ultimate realisability was not determinable.
8. Charging of Interest under Sections 139(8), 215, and 216:
The assessee argued that the ITO should have exercised discretion under Rule 117A to waive interest under section 139(8). The CIT(A) directed the ITO to examine the matter if the assessee applied under Rule 117A. The Tribunal upheld this direction. For interest under section 215, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s similar direction under Rule 40. For interest under section 216, the CIT(A) had already directed the ITO to recompute deficiencies, and the Tribunal found no need for interference.
Separate Judgments:
- The Accountant Member disagreed with the Judicial Member on the interpretation of section 37(4) regarding guest house expenses, emphasizing that special provisions in section 37(4) should prevail over general provisions in sections 30, 31, and 32.
- The Third Member, addressing the difference of opinion, concluded that both Members agreed on not allowing expenses under sections 30, 31, and 32 in the face of section 37(4), thus resolving the misunderstanding.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions for re-examination and confirmation of disallowances as per the Tribunal's detailed analysis and previous orders.
-
1989 (5) TMI 116
Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the marriages of her granddaughters and the air-ticket for another granddaughter constitutes a gift for the purpose of Gift-tax Act.
2. Whether the legal obligation to perform marriages of granddaughters shifts the burden of gift to the assessee.
3. Interpretation of the definition of "gift" under the Gift-tax Act and its application to the case at hand.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessment of whether the expenses incurred by the assessee on the marriages of her granddaughters and the air-ticket for another granddaughter constituted a gift under the Gift-tax Act. The IAC of Gift-tax treated the expenditure as a gift, leading to an appeal by the assessee. The Assessing Officer argued that there was no legal obligation on the assessee to bear the marriage expenses, shifting the burden of gift to her. The Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) upheld the assessment order.
2. The assessee contended that there was no gift involved in the expenditure for the marriages and the air-ticket. The Assessing Officer relied on Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to establish the legal obligation for marriage expenses. However, the Tribunal held that gratuitous expenditure without transferring any property does not constitute a gift. It was determined that there was no transfer of property to the granddaughters, and the expenses did not amount to a gift in this regard. The legal obligation to perform marriages did not imply a gift by the assessee.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "gift" under the Gift-tax Act, emphasizing the requirement of a voluntary transfer of property from a donor to a donee without consideration. It was established that in this case, there was no transfer of property to the granddaughters through the marriage expenses. However, the cost of the air-ticket for one granddaughter was considered a gift as it involved the transfer of a property. The Tribunal concluded that the total value of the gift was only the amount spent on the air-ticket, not the entire expenditure on the marriages.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, holding that while the expenditure on the marriages did not constitute a gift, the cost of the air-ticket for one granddaughter was considered a gift under the Gift-tax Act. The assessment order was modified accordingly to reflect the value of the gift as the air-ticket amount only.
-
1989 (5) TMI 115
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the IT Act to review assessments made under section 143(1).
2. Failure of the ITO to conduct necessary inquiries before finalizing assessments.
3. Validity of CIT's decision to set aside assessments and direct the ITO to reframe them.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with two appeals filed by the assessee against the CIT's order under section 263 of the IT Act for assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The CIT found the assessments to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue due to lack of proper inquiries by the ITO. The CIT directed the ITO to reframe the assessments after obtaining necessary information from the assessee. The appeals were disposed of together as they involved common grounds arising from a consolidated order of the Commissioner for convenience.
2. The assessee and her representative did not appear for the hearing, leading to the appeals being disposed of ex parte. The Departmental Representative assisted the Tribunal in the proceedings. The facts of the case revealed that the ITO accepted the incomes returned by the assessee without conducting any inquiries or investigations, even after issuing notices under section 148 for the two assessment years.
3. The CIT found discrepancies in the assessment records, such as incomplete details about properties constructed by the assessee, loans raised without specifying the lenders, and lack of information on the location of properties. Despite the CIT's directions for inquiries and information gathering, the ITO completed the assessments summarily. The CIT set aside the assessments, citing them as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue's interest, and instructed the ITO to reframe them after proper inquiries.
4. The Departmental Representative argued that the CIT had the authority to review assessments made under section 143(1) and direct the ITO to reframe them if found erroneous. The representative emphasized the necessity for the ITO to conduct inquiries, especially after issuing notices under section 148, to ensure accurate assessments. Legal precedents were cited to support the CIT's jurisdiction in invoking section 263 for such cases.
5. The Tribunal acknowledged the Departmental Representative's submissions and reviewed the case records. It was noted that the assessee's returns indicated property income and interest payments without providing essential details. The ITO's failure to conduct necessary inquiries despite issuing notices under section 148 was deemed a critical oversight. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT's decision to set aside the assessments and direct the ITO to reframe them after obtaining comprehensive information from the assessee.
6. Citing the observations of the Delhi High Court in a relevant case, the Tribunal emphasized the ITO's duty to investigate cases that warrant further inquiries, even if the initial returns appear in order. As the ITO did not fulfill this duty in the present case, the CIT's decision to set aside the assessments was deemed justified. The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the CIT's order in this matter.
7. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, affirming the CIT's decision to set aside the assessments and instruct the ITO to reframe them after conducting necessary inquiries.
-
1989 (5) TMI 114
Issues:
1. Allowability of foreign tour expenses as revenue expenditure.
2. Priority of set-off of earlier years unabsorbed allowances.
3. Allowability of public relation expenses.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is the allowability of foreign tour expenses as revenue expenditure. The dispute arose when the CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 54,210 on account of foreign tour expenses incurred by the Vice-Chairman of the assessee-company for discussions on foreign collaboration. The lower authorities disallowed the amount, considering it capital expenditure. However, the assessee contended that the expenses were genuine and incurred for the purpose of obtaining technical assistance to improve the quality of existing products, not for setting up a new line of business. The Tribunal analyzed the purpose of the foreign visit and concluded that no enduring benefit accrued to the assessee, thus allowing the expenditure as revenue in nature.
2. Another issue raised was the priority of set-off of earlier years unabsorbed allowances. The appellant claimed priority in a specific order for set-off of past years' unabsorbed allowances. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the assessee's case for a different assessment year, where the same contention was rejected. Following the precedent, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's grounds on this point.
3. Lastly, the question of the allowability of public relation expenses was addressed. The assessee claimed the entire amount of Rs. 71,574 incurred on entertainment under the head "public relations" as allowable. The ITO disallowed the expenditure based on a High Court decision. However, the CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to re-determine the allowable amount considering expenses incurred on employees. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision based on similar treatment in subsequent years, allowing 20% of the expenses related to employee costs.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, allowing the foreign tour expenses as revenue expenditure but upholding the decisions on the set-off of unabsorbed allowances and public relation expenses based on previous rulings and considerations of expenses related to employees.
-
1989 (5) TMI 113
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of finance charges of Rs. 78,167.
2. Validity of gifts made by the appellant to the grandchildren of the Karta through his daughters.
3. Inclusion of income attributable to the sum of Rs. 25,000 in the appellant's income.
4. Levy of interest under s. 215 of the IT Act.
Issue 1: Disallowance of Finance Charges of Rs. 78,167
The appellant challenged the confirmation of the disallowance of Rs. 78,167 claimed as finance charges (interest paid on money borrowed from banks). The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), claimed this expenditure against income earned from the sale of shares. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) questioned the nature of these charges, and the assessee explained that the overdraft facility was used for personal purposes, including payment of advance tax. The ITO disallowed the claim, stating that the liability could not be considered a business liability due to the lack of maintained accounts. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision, noting that the withdrawals were used for non-business purposes and referencing a Calcutta High Court decision which was deemed not applicable to the present case. The Tribunal, upon hearing the appellant's representative and the Revenue's arguments, decided to set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh decision, considering the observations made in a similar case of Mrs. Dolly Nanda.
Issue 2: Validity of Gifts Made by the Appellant to the Grandchildren of the Karta Through His Daughters
The appellant made gifts totaling Rs. 35,000 to seven grandchildren, with the ITO questioning the validity of these gifts under Hindu Law. The ITO deemed the gifts void as the donees were considered strangers to the HUF, and added Rs. 5,250 as interest on the gifted amount. The CIT(A) partially accepted the gifts made to the Karta's son's children but upheld the ITO's decision regarding the gifts to the Karta's daughters' children. The appellant argued that the gifts were within reasonable limits and supported by Hindu Law principles. The Tribunal examined the relevant Hindu Law provisions and case precedents, concluding that the gifts made to the children of the Karta's daughters were valid as they were within reasonable limits and made through affection. The Tribunal held that the gifts were not void and no interest should be added to the assessee's income.
Issue 3: Inclusion of Income Attributable to the Sum of Rs. 25,000 in the Appellant's Income
The CIT(A) directed the ITO to add the income on the balance sum of Rs. 25,000 (gifts to the Karta's daughters' children) to the appellant's income. The appellant contested this inclusion, arguing that the entire gift should be accepted. The Tribunal, after analyzing the principles of Hindu Law and relevant case laws, determined that the gifts were valid and within reasonable limits. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that no income attributable to the gifted amount should be included in the appellant's income.
Issue 4: Levy of Interest Under s. 215 of the IT Act
The appellant raised a ground against the levy of interest under s. 215 of the IT Act, but this ground was rejected as not pressed.
Conclusion
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the disallowance of finance charges was set aside for fresh consideration, and the gifts made to the Karta's daughters' children were deemed valid, resulting in no inclusion of interest on the gifted amount in the appellant's income. The ground against the levy of interest under s. 215 was rejected.
-
1989 (5) TMI 112
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of the claim made under Section 35B.
2. Disallowance of bad debts.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of the Claim Made Under Section 35B:
The assessee, a Nationalised Bank, claimed a weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act for expenses incurred in maintaining a branch in London. The expenditure amounted to Rs. 64,16,686. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the claim on the grounds that the bank was not exporting services or facilities outside India, as required under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv).
The bank argued that its London branch provided various services that promoted the sale of goods, services, or facilities outside India. These services included helping Indian exporters identify prospective buyers, offering favorable financing terms to foreign buyers, collecting and transmitting confidential information, mediating disputes, arranging storage facilities, providing buyer credit, and facilitating tourism.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the claim under Section 35B. The Tribunal observed that the section was enacted to promote the development of foreign markets, which would ultimately facilitate more exports and bring in foreign exchange. The Tribunal emphasized that the maintenance of a branch outside India for the promotion of services or facilities was sufficient to qualify for the weighted deduction, without the need for actual export of services. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify the claim of expenses and allow the weighted deduction accordingly.
2. Disallowance of Bad Debts:
The assessee claimed the write-off of ten bad debts, which were disallowed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that they were prematurely written off. The Tribunal discussed each bad debt separately:
- M/s A.K. Woollen Mills and Mini Enterprises (Rs. 12,44,000):
The debt was disallowed as premature despite obtaining decrees for recovery. The Tribunal held that the bank had taken all necessary steps to recover the amount, and the write-off was justified as the assets were insufficient to cover the debt.
- Punjab Electrical & General Industries (Rs. 60,264):
The debt was disallowed as premature. The Tribunal found that the bank had exhausted all means to recover the amount, and the write-off was justified.
- Ganga Prashad Bachu Lal (Rs. 16,61,271):
The debt was disallowed as premature. The Tribunal held that the bank had taken all necessary steps, and the write-off was justified as the debtor had no assets to cover the debt.
- Bharat Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 2,75,000):
The debt was disallowed as premature. The Tribunal found that the bank had taken all necessary steps, and the write-off was justified as the debtor's assets were insufficient to cover the debt.
- Sethai Mills Ltd. (Rs. 7,71,414):
The debt was disallowed as premature. The Tribunal held that the bank had taken all necessary steps, and the write-off was justified as the debtor had no assets to cover the debt.
- Bharat Dyes & Chemical Industries (Rs. 1,65,771):
The debt was disallowed as premature. The Tribunal found that the bank had taken all necessary steps, and the write-off was justified as the debtor's assets were insufficient to cover the debt.
- Rayman Engineering Works (Rs. 4,50,000):
The debt was disallowed as premature. The Tribunal held that the bank had taken all necessary steps, and the write-off was justified as the debtor had no assets to cover the debt.
- Model Mills Ltd. (Rs. 33,18,097.15):
The debt was disallowed as premature. The Tribunal found that the bank had taken all necessary steps, and the write-off was justified as the debtor's assets were insufficient to cover the debt.
- V. Krishnamurthy Chettiar (Rs. 47,137) and V. S. Sambha Swami, Oil Merchant (Rs. 3,301):
The debts were disallowed as premature. The Tribunal held that the bank had taken all necessary steps, and the write-off was justified as the debts had become irrecoverable.
The Tribunal concluded that the bank had taken all necessary steps to recover the debts, and the write-offs were justified. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the allowance of the bad debts.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the weighted deduction under Section 35B for the expenses incurred in maintaining the London branch and allowing the write-off of the bad debts.
........
|
9911796707
