|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 74 Records
-
1976 (5) TMI 34 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... le entity under the Act. We entirely agree with the submission s made on behalf of the assessee that the decision of the Gauhati High Court relied on behalf of the revenue has no bearing to the point involved in the present appeal hellip hellip hellip in the present case, we are concerned with exemption granted to an assessable entity under the Act is respect of a house property. Surely, the exemption contemplated under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act has not to be considered while determining the share of a member of the AOP under the provisions of s. 4(1)(b) and 4(2) of the Act r/w r. 2 of the WT Rules, 1957. The exemption as contemplated under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act has to be given to a member of an AOP and not to the AOP itself. In this view of the matter, we hold that the exemption claimed by the assessee under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act is well founded and should be accepted. We, therefore, direct the WTO to modify the assessment accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1976 (5) TMI 33 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... roceedings. It was, therefore, a case in which two views were possible. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal also refused to the fact that even the CIT with whom the settlement of income had been arrived at had come to the conclusion that the additions made were in the nature of addition made to the trading account implying thereby that the case did not warrant levy of penalty and that the assessee came forward with a voluntary disclosure the very next day of the search. 8. These observations of the CIT and the conduct of the assessee go to prove the assessee rsquo s contention that the surrender made was more with a view to purchase peace and not in any manner agreeing that there was concealment of income. 9. For these reasons which are briefly discussed there, the Tribunal in these cases had cancelled the penalties. For those very reasons we hold that even in these years the penalties could not be imposed. We, therefore, cancel these penalties and allow the appeals.
-
1976 (5) TMI 32 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ibuted to negligence. There should, therefore, be evidence to show that the omission to include the sum of Rs. 20,000 as part of the income of the assessee was due to fraud. In the circumstances in which the addition has been made in those years, I do not think that an inference of fraud follows merely because the assessee s estimate of his savings is not accepted and the assessing and appellate authorities have made their own varying estimates as to the probable savings available with the assessee. In my opinion, this is not a case in which fraud on the part of the assessee can be inferred from the circumstances. I am, therefore, of opinion that the imposition of a penalty is not justified. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, I answer the question which has been referred to me by saying that the order imposing the penalty requires to be cancelled. The matter will now go back to the Bench which originally heard the appeal for disposal in accordance with s. 255(4) of the Act.
-
1976 (5) TMI 31 - CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... . 75,083-24 to the G.T.O. and T.T.O. must be deleted. 7. The second point is regarding the conversion. On this point after looking to the accounts the assessing officer has recorded that on this score the appellant has effected transactions worth Rs. 65,286-32. There is no dispute regarding the quantum. But is argued that he purchased timbers, got them saw and sold sized woods. Thus he has not violated any of the transactions. But is now settled that once round logs are purchased and they are sold after conversion into sized logs, the dealers sells a different commercial commodity as such there is violation. In that view the addition on this score has been rightly done and it cannot interfered with. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The inclusion of sales amounting to Rs. 75,083-24 be deleted both from the G.T.O. and T.T.O. and tax be recalculated. In case it is found that the appellant has paid anything in excess, the same be refunded by the assessing officer.
-
1976 (5) TMI 30 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... ay, also note that if for example the assessee had kept money in the Bank it would have attracted the exemption under s. 5(1)(xxvi) and even according to the Revenue he would have obtained exemption if he had purchased a completely built house with that money. It does not stand to reason that the assessee should be denied the exemption during the process of acquiring such a house by constructing it himself and thus become taxable during the process of converting one exempted asset into another exempted asset. This illustrates how the contention of the Revenue is likely to go against the very purpose of the Act and lead to unjust results. We are therefore of the opinion the taking all the circumstances into consideration the assessee in the present case could not be denied the exemption claimed in these two assessment years. The addition made in this respect are therefore directed to be deleted. 8. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the cross objections are dismissed.
-
1976 (5) TMI 29 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... e levy of penalty for 62-63 to 68-69 and we had largely upheld the levy. That was because the assessee had, in those years, concealed the sources of income. The conduct of the assessee over these years was different. Upto the date of the settlement proposal they had been concealing facts. But the settlement proposal is the dividing line, the water-shed after which there is a change in their attitude. There has been no efforts to conceal from that date and on the other hand, they had given full facts and figures to the ITO either in the return itself or subsequently in the course of hearing. Each assessment proceeding is separate and whether the assessee has concealed has to be seen on the facts of each year. The assessee might have concealed in an earlier year but that should not prejudice us. We have to wear blinkers and see his conduct in that year. 28. In view of the forgoing discussions we think that there is no case as all for the levy of penalty. The appeal is allowed.
-
1976 (5) TMI 28 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... sessment is made only on receipt basis and not an accrual basis. So the only question is whether the constructive receipt can be taken into consideration as income of the assessee or money received by the assessee. The fact that in prior years renewal, interest had been assessed as income of the year in which renewal was effected is not at all a basis. Those assessment were an agreed basis under settlement. The theory of constructive respect being considered as income of the assessee had been discarded by the Supreme Court in their two judgments 86 ITR 751 (Lal Umesh Bahadu Pal and Ors. vs. CIT) and 65 ITR 395 (CIT vs. Amalgamated Development Ltd.). So in an assessment on receipt basis as in this case there must be actual receipt and not constructive receipt like renewal of interest. Therefore, the amount has to be excluded from assessment in this year. 5. So the appeal is allowed. The sum of Rs. 13,850 is excluded from assessment. The assessment will be revised accordingly.
-
1976 (5) TMI 27 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... 13(b) of the partnership Act, is that in the absence of other specific ratio about the contribution of losses, the major partners are also to contribute equally to the losses of the firm. Such interpretation will not amount to re-writing the terms of the document because no partner has been given a share of profit in excess of what is provided in the deed or made to contribute to the losses more than what is provided in the document. This interpretation put by us at worst is only an analysis of cl. 7 in a language other than what is used in the document to convey the intentions and at the same time preserving intact the rights and obligations of the parties to the document as contained and conforming to the very tenor of the document. So we find that in this case, provision has been made not only for shareing the profits of the firm but also for contributing to the entire losses leaving no portion of the losses unproved for. 10. So the result is that the appeal is dismissed.
-
1976 (5) TMI 26 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... the second part specific. In the first part the assessee trust is authorised to accept any other trusts having the same objects as (a) to (c). Since objects (a) to (c) are charitable this part also is charitable. The second part which is specific allows the trustees to accept any trust created in the name of Sree Narayana Guru for the purpose of propagating his teachings or for the purpose of working of the educational advancement of the back ward people or for the material and spiritual well-being of the people. No exception can be taken to any of the objects here. The trust that will be taken over will have the purpose of propagating the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru which is a charitable object or if the purpose will be educational or advancement of spiritual well being which is a matter of public utility. We, therefore, hold that cl. (d) is also charitable. 7. Since all the objects are charitable, we will uphold the order of the AAC and dismiss the departmental appeal.
-
1976 (5) TMI 25 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ssee s contention because under r. 1(vii) the sum to be excluded is limited to the deduction allowed under s. 80-G of the IT Act, but no such limit is provided under r. 1(viii) of the First Schedule. The learned Departmental Representative s argument that r. 1 uses the words shall be excluded and r. 2 uses the words shall be reduced does not help him in any manner because the purpose of the two rules is different. R. 1 provides the exclusion of certain items of income from the total income assessed under the IT Act. R. 2 provides a further reduction of certain items like income-tax and these items do not form a part of the total income of the assessee. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that under r. 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) sur-tax Act, 1964, the gross dividend of Rs. 2,25,734 is to be excluded from the total income computed for purposes of income-tax assessment. We thus uphold the order of AAC. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1976 (5) TMI 24 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... ss orders on an application in form No. 6. We can understand that the assessee should obtain orders on the application if there was a legal obligation on the ITO to pass such an order, and the assessee has a right to compel the ITO to do so. That, however, is not the case here. Therefore, all that the assessee can do, and he did in this case, was to request the ITO to extend the time for filing the return, and thereafter the ball was in the ITO s court, and the assessee could not compel him to pass orders extending the time for filing the return. That apart, the firm having delayed finalisation of its accounts and having filed it return only on 31st Dec., 1970, the same day on which the assessee filed his return, relying on Venkateswara Power Rolling Mills and Another vs. CIT, Bangalore(1) we hold that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return by the assessee. We accordingly allow the appeal and cancel the penalty. 3. In the result, the appeal in allowed.
-
1976 (5) TMI 23 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t nor against any particular purchase. The payment of Rs. 7,500 made on 1st April, 1971 as well as not against any particular purchase and it is not covered by s. 40A(3). Now coming to Daulatram Makhanlal, we accept the assessee s contention that a certificate from the party was filed in the office of the ITO with letter received on 17th March, 1975. That certificate was not considered by the ITO. The AAC has observed that he considered that letter but he has not referred to this certificate. It was stated before us by the assessee s counsel that it was mentioned in that certificate that that party had sent its employee to collect the money in cash and hence, the assessee made the payment to him in cash. In the circumstances of the case this submission has to be accepted. We hold, therefore, that the payments at items 2 to 5 are covered by r. 6DD(j) while the payment at serial No. 1 is not hit by s. 40-A(3). The addition of these amounts is deleted and the appeal is allowed.
-
1976 (5) TMI 22 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... eld in favour of the assessee. We accordingly agree with the contention of the assessee s representative that the view expressed by the majority in the full Bench case should be taken to be prevailing opinion of their Lordships so far as the pronouncement of legal principles are concerned. The matter has been discussed by the Tribunal in another case and one of the Benches of the Tribunal has also taken a view similar to ours. We agree, with respect, with the reasonings given in the said order of the learned Bench. The intention of the parties is clear from the narration in the preamble quoted above and there is no ambiguity about the status of the respective partners, who jointed the firm i.e., the Karta of the HUF. In our opinion, the disallowance of interest paid by the firm to Shri Pratap Narain and Shri Triyugi Narain in their individual accounts on their respective credits advanced to the firm was not justified. We accordingly delete the some. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1976 (5) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Medicines - Ayurvedic preparation ... ... ... ... ..... owers the Central Government to prepare and notify a list of a medicinal preparations, which are considered to be capable of being used as ordinary alcoholic beverage. Such a classification has its relevance for the purpose of adjudicating as to whether the preparation would fall within clause (i) or clause (ii) of Entry 3 or Entries 1 or 2 of the schedule. The Rule nowhere contemplates any classification by the Central Government of products for treating them as Ayurvedic preparations as erroneously assumed by the Appellate Tribunal. So far as the second assumption is concerned, for reasons already given by us, it must be held that the Tribunal was misconstruing the relevant Entry in thinking that in order to be an Ayurvedic preparation the preparation must be one manufactured in accordance with the recipe or directions laid down in any of the recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeias. 16.For reasons aforesaid this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (5) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
`Foreign going vessel' ... ... ... ... ..... , it was a foreign going vessel within the meaning of Section 2(21) during the period mentioned above. 23.In these premises, the demand of the Customs authorities for duty in respect of stores consumed by Nancy Dee during the aforesaid period appears to us to be unreasonable. The demand letters dated October 15, 1970 and January 30, 1970 have, therefore, to be set aside. 24.In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal are reversed and the rule nisi is made absolute. 25.Let a Writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued calling upon the respondents and each of them to forthwith cancel or rescind the demand orders dated October 15, 1970 and January 30, 1971. The appellants are released from their guarantee. Money lying with the Customs authorities under order of this Court dated the 26th February, 1971, is to be refunded to the appellant. Prayer for interim stay is refused. 26.There will be no order as to costs. 27. per Salil Kumar Dutta, J. . - I agree.
-
1976 (5) TMI 19 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - U-Foam - Sale and distribution expenses excludible - Profit margin ... ... ... ... ..... rder has not elaborated the reason for which he has chosen to include the selling and distribution charges while arriving at the cost of production. The Govt. of India observes in this connection that the party s contention in this regard is supported by the record in order-in-appeal and, therefore, has some force in it. This point needs further examination by the Appellate Authority. Sale and distribution expenses wherever they are precisely identifiable with proper justification should merit exclusion from the assessable value. Regarding the profit margin the Govt. of India are of the view that from the total cost of sales the deductible charges and the Central excise duty should be excluded to arrive at the net cost and the profit margin should represent the difference between the net cost and the cost of production. In view of the circumstances as explained above the Govt. of India considers it necessary to remand the case to the Appellate Authority for de novo decision.
-
1976 (5) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner has jurisdiction to pass an order in this case under section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ?
Held that:- The Commissioner in this case had jurisdiction to make the order he did under section 34, and the question referred to the High Court under section 60(2) should, therefore, be answered in the affirmative. The appeals are allowed.
-
1976 (5) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Legal Representative, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... sue of the sale proclamation to the confirmation of the sale were invalid, and are without jurisdiction on account of the properties of the petitioner being put to sale for arrears which were not due against him. Reliance by counsel for the auction purchaser on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh is also misplaced for, in that case, the judgment-debtor had not challenged the sale and sought to impugn it only after the decree passed against him had been set aside. In the present case, the petitioners have challenged the sale by filing a petition in this court and also preferred objection before the Tax Recovery Officer. This being so, it will not be appropriate to apply the principles laid down in the case of Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned sale and the confirmation thereof and the sale deed executed in favour of the auction-purchaser are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to their costs.
-
1976 (5) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Assessment Year, Best Judgment Assessment, Illegal Search, Search And Seizure
-
1976 (5) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cash Gifts, Estate Duty Act, Property Deemed To Pass ... ... ... ... ..... ect. The crucial question is whether the possession was assumed by the donee and whether the donor was excluded from the subject-matter of the gift. From the findings it is clear that the donees assumed possession over the subject-matter of the gift. The sons when they invested the amount gifted to them in their business were deriving profit of their own investment and no part of it was being enjoyed by the donor. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the donor in the circumstances was excluded appears to be correct. As both the ingredients as contemplated in section 10 are satisfied, we think that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. In the result we answer the reference in the negative, against the department and in favour of the assessee, by saying that the sum of Rs. 60,000 gifted by the assessee to his sons is not includible in the estate of the deceased. The assessee shall be entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the negative.
|
