|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 64 Records
-
1976 (6) TMI 44 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... rm of four partners and neither of them is liable to tax nor the firm. Therefore, the question of evading payment of tax may not be the consideration is showing less profit. The Departmental representative pointed out that the assessee will quote his order for other years as a precedent and therefore, the department will be aggrieved if the low rate or profit is accepted. I do not think the fears expressed by the Departmental Representative are really valid because each assessment year is separate and the consideration of one year may not apply to the other year. I have already made it clear that the book results of this year are being accepted because of the lowness of the contract receipts and inexperience of the assessee. The Departmental representative pointed out that in subsequent assessment years, a rate of 10 is accepted. I am unable to apply that rate of this year because of the fact that the receipts are too small to interfere with. The appeal is therefore, allowed.
-
1976 (6) TMI 43 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... entitled for reduction of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s.24 (1)(vi) of the Act. However, in course of the arguments it was pointed by the departmental representative that the interest was disallowed not only because the fund was used for the construction of the building but it was also partly used for the domestic expenses. This fact was explained by the assessee in course of the argument. The assessee stated that a part of the borrowed fund was utilised for the construction of the building. For the domestic expenses, the assessee withdrew money from his capital account and, therefore, the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is incorrect. In this connection the assessee also filed, the detais of the amount withdrawn from the borrowed fund. After examining the statement of the assessee we accept his arguments and consequently direct the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction for the interest from the property income. 11. No other ground pressed. Appeal is partly allowed.
-
1976 (6) TMI 42 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... at from the very outset the capital should be arranged on loan. In any way, the mere fact that capital was brought from HUF does not establish that both the partners are benamidars for HUF We have already observed above that if the Department comes to the conclusion that profits were acquired by the assessee-firm with the help of the capital of HUF and to the detriment to the latter, then the Department may, consider this question at the time of assessment and it is a fact, then the income so acquired by the assessee-firm, can be assessed in the hands of the HUF than having been assessed in the hands of the assessee. There does not seem to be a good ground to refuse the registration on the ground that capital was arranged by the partners from the HUF Also there is no material on record to hold that the partners in any way acted contrary to the terms of the partnership deed. We therefore agree with the view taken by the AAC. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1976 (6) TMI 41 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... ld have been accounted for by the assessee in her Wealth-tax returns. However, due to some evident misunderstanding she did not do so in her wealth-tax return for the asst. yr. 1970-71. She showed Rs. 34,200 as a liability and this was accepted by the WTO in an assessment made on5th Dec., 1970. Both the dates of Wealth-tax returns filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1971-72 and 1972-73 are all dates subsequent to5th Dec., 1970. However, the assessee rsquo s borrowing the same method of accounting for the receipts from AE in these returns may well have been induced by the WTO rsquo s order dt.5th Dec., 1970for the asst. yr. 1970-71. Apart from this, there seems to be some scope for confusion in the matter, as is evident from the WTO rsquo s assessment orders for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 as well, in which they had accepted the amounts credited to the account of AE as liabilities. Accordingly, we cancel the penalties for both the years. 10. The appeals are allowed.
-
1976 (6) TMI 40 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... n of income from business. The claim of the assessee has therefore, to be allowed. 5. As regards s. 36, the only other point to be considered is whether this debt has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee. The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee has not taken in into account in the computation and that it is only Radha Printers that has taken it into the computation and that is not sufficient to attract s. 36. The assessee has cited the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao and Co. 102 ITR 604 and argued that even the seccessor-assessee can claim relief under s. 36. As we have already allowed the claims as a trading loss, we are not considering this line of additional arguments in respect of the claim for deduction. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The amount of Rs. 15,372 is held to be a deductible item in the computation of income from business for this asst. yr. 1972-73.
-
1976 (6) TMI 39 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ch is in debate would continue to be so and it is well settled that debatable points cannot be rectified under s. 154. He submitted that in disposing of an appeal by us recently we had taken precisely the same line of reasoning. A point on which much could be said by both sides in debatable but the statute had authorised an authority whose words will be binding on the subordinates. Thus, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court is a law throughout the country. The pronouncement of the High Court is a law in that State. After the pronouncement of the High Court although the matter may be academically debatable it ceases to be so within that State. It is in this sense that we hold that on 16th march, 1973 the matter was not debatable. The appeal referred to by the Departmental Representative was different on facts. Therein when the order was passed there was no decision of the High Court. The decision came subsequently. 7. For the reasons stated above, we would allow the appeal.
-
1976 (6) TMI 38 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... mission of tenders for the supply outside India, which fact seems to be true, then the assessee is entitled to the relief. We are quite satisfied that these facts about the work done by the two persons in obtaining information regarding markets outside India and preparation and submission of tenders has been placed before the ITO. Other wise the ITO would not have come to the conclusion that these persons are assisting the assessee in getting the orders from foreign countries. The departmental representative did not explain to us any other mode of assistance rendered by the two persons to the assessee and on which the ITO came to the conclusion that the persons are assisting the assessee so that we can come to a conclusion that the finding of the ITO that these place are assisting the assessee was based on some other method of work not falling under s. 35B(1)(b)(ii) or 35B(1)(b)(v). We agree with the reasoning of the AAC. 6. For these reasons these two appeals are dismissed.
-
1976 (6) TMI 37 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... the said WILL had been already acted upon without any challenge from any heir of the testatrix and following his appellate order relating to the assessment year commencing on 1st April 1969, held the disputed amount of Rs.31,765 as not includible in the taxable income of the assessee individual. It is common ground between the parties that the facts and circumstances of the present appeal are the same in all material particulars as involved in the assessment year 1969-70 and 1970-71. Such being the case, the Tribunal s earlier decision fully governs this year s appeal also. Being consistent with the view which this Bench has taken in the assessee s case, we hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s decision regarding the deletion of Rs. 33,153 from the taxable income of the assessee suffers from no infirmity and there is no cause of action for us to interfere with this finding 4. In the result, both the revenue s appeal and assessee s cross-objections stand dismissed.
-
1976 (6) TMI 36 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... rred to its earlier judgement in Banarsi Devi vs. ITO (1964) 53 ITR 100. The same words serve and issue have been used in s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 also. The learned Departmental Representative had argued that in 53 ITR 100 the expression issue and serve appearing in s. 34 of the IT Act, 1922 had been interpreted whereas the language of s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was different. He further submitted that the judgment in 99 ITR 581 was on the use of expressions issue and serve in the WT Act. According to him, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has not finally settled to the controversy. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Departmental Representative. In view of the fact that special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was rejected, we are unable to accept the contention that the controversy is still open. The application for reference is, therefore, rejected. 7. In the result, the reference application is dismissed.
-
1976 (6) TMI 35 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... fact that the constitution of the firm has remained the same a it was in earlier years. The assessee firm is admittedly a genuine firm which was allowed registration in earlier year. A mere irregularity in the procedure or delay in filing the declaration form is a curable delay. The assessee has compiled with the substantive provision of law and a technical default should not debar it from the benefit of registration. Accordingly, we are opinion that the continuation of registration should be allowed to the assessee. We accordingly direct that the firm should be treated as registered and the assessment should be modified accordingly. 5. Keeping in view the facts of the case before me and the observation of the Appellate Tribunal reproduced above, I am of the opinion that the continuation of registration should be allowed to the assessee. The ITO is therefore directed to give consequential benefit to the assessee firm and its partners. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1976 (6) TMI 34 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s. 2(10) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. 9. Looking to the facts that the appellant is a society of agriculturist-members and it was formed with the object of proceeding Shanker-4 quality of cotton-seeds as per the Government Policy and it was under a bonafide impression that it was not dealer within the meaning of the Gujarat Act, we feel that no penalty for non- registration and for late payment of tax should be imposed, so, penalties imposed under s. 45 (2) (c) and 45 (6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 are removed. 10. In the result, these second appeals are partially allowed. It is held that the appellant society is dealer within the meaning of s. 2(10) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Penalties imposed under s. 45 (2)(c) and 45(6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 are removed. The orders of the Sales Tax Officer confirmed by the learned Assistant Commissioner shall be modified accordingly. The amounts of penalties if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.
-
1976 (6) TMI 33 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Erroneous refund - Applicability of Rules 10 and 10A ... ... ... ... ..... ty raised against them whereas it should have been raised under Rule 10. But the same could not be invoked in the recovery of duty erroneously refunded the same being time-barred. 3. The Government of India observes that the rebate including the regulatory duty granted to the petitioners was adjusted in their PLA on 15-11-65 and 23-6-1966. The DD2 under which the amounts of Rs. 994-52 and Rs. 284 60 were raised on dated 16-2-1968. Since it is a case of erroneous grant of refund it is covered by Rule 10. In the circumstances the revision applications are allowed as the demands of duty are time-barred under Rule 10. It also orders that consequential relief be granted to the petitioners.
-
1976 (6) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
Valuation - Deduction for post-manufacturing expenses ... ... ... ... ..... ble of being sold in wholesale at the place of manufacture or production. 14. In the light of the above discussion, I would issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Assistant Collector of Central Excise, lDO Ernakulam, to dispose of Exts P2 and P3 representations and pass orders in the matter in accordance with law in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1973 SC 225 1977 E.L.T. (J 177) and Writ Appeal Nos. 461 and 462 of 1975 - 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 89). The 1st respondent in the meantime will refrain from assessing and recovering the excise duty on the post-manufacturing cost and selling profits on the products of the petitioner-Company. In regard to the payment already made on the basis of the assessments it is necessary that the respondents should make re-assessments in respect of the tyres concerned and if any amount is found due to the petitioner-Company that should be refunded. 15. O.P. is disposed of as above but I make no order as to costs.
-
1976 (6) TMI 31 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Horse Racing, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... er won a prize of rupees one lakh in the U.P. State Lotteries held in December, 1972. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the levy of tax was ultra vires of the powers of Parliament. It was urged that the tax does not fall either under entry 82 or entry 97 of the Union List (List I) but that it would fall, if at all, under entry 62, List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The learned judges held that the impugned tax was covered by entry 82 of the Union List and Parliament was competent to impose tax on such winnings. We agree with that decision. Thus there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We hold that Parliament is competent to enact clause (ix) in sub-section (24) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under entry 82 of the Union List (List I) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. In the result, we dismiss this petition with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1976 (6) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, General Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... l be payable only from such date as may be specified in the resolution. When dividend is payable out of general reserves if declared by the shareholders at a general meeting, there is no question of making any provision for a known or anticipated liability and it is not possible for us to take the view that the amount to be paid pursuant to the resolution of the directors to declare a dividend should be treated as a provision or should be deducted from the amount of general reserve for the purpose of determining the capital under the Surtax Act, 1964. As the liability will arise prospectively, it can never relate back to the first day of the accounting year. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the amount of dividend declared at a future date when the general meeting was held ought not to be deducted from the general reserves for the purposes of computing the capital under the Surtax Act, 1964. In the result, the rule is discharged with costs.
-
1976 (6) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded equally between the five partners of the firm would include the sale price of the assets in question transferred by the assessee to the firm. The proposition so put in general terms by the learned departmental representative does not bring out the correct position. As stated earlier, the correct legal position is that when a person hands over his property to a firm of partners consisting of himself and others, there is no transfer of property so as to constitute a sale and in this view of the matter, the assessee is entitled to succeed. We are in entire agreement with the above observation with regard to the conception of sale involving the fixing and payment of a price thereof and such an element is totally absent factually in the present case. Under these circumstances, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the department. The assessee is entitled to his costs of this reference from the Commissioner of Income-tax and the counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 500.
-
1976 (6) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, Taxation Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... the Companies Act, the proposed dividend has to be shown under the heading provisions , in substance, it amounts to a reserve as known to accountancy practice which has been approved by the Supreme Court in the Metal Box Company of India Ltd. s case 1969 73 ITR 53 (SC). Under these circumstances we must hold that the amount of Rs. 2,13,600 standing in the proposed dividend accounts as on December 31, 1961, was includible in computing the capital of the company but the amount of Rs. 3,31,069 standing in the provision for taxation account as on December 31, 1961, was not includible in computing the capital of the company. Under these circumstances, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of the fact that each side has partly succeeded and partly failed, there will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1976 (6) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... ords placed before the court there is absolutely no material to show what was the advantage or the benefit which the assessee intended to obtain by making the donation and for what purpose the assessee made the donation with reference to its business interests. Apart from the bald claim that the donation made to a political party cannot be disallowed, the assessee has not established that the donation made by it to the political party in question constituted an item of expenditure laid out solely and exclusively for the purpose of its business. In other words, the link or the nexus between the donation and the business of the assessee not having been established, the assessee is not entitled to claim the amount in question as an allowance or deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under these circumstances, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the Commissioner. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500.
-
1976 (6) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal was required to consider was whether assessment for assessment year 1962-63 was pending on November 11, 1966. As we have pointed out above, it must be held to have been pending on that date. In view of these conclusions, our answer to the questions referred to us is as follows Question No. 1.--In the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 2.--In the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of the fact that the declaration must be held to have effect for assessment year 1962-63, the tax payable by the assessee for assessment year 1962-63 must be the tax payable on his total income as if it was the total income of a resident within the meaning of section 113, sub-section (4), of the Act of 1961. Question No. 3 must also, therefore, be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1976 (6) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... amily, there may be a moral obligation on the part of Alagiriswamy to provide for his sisters, whether at the time of the marriage or afterwards. In this case the partition took place between the father and the two sons and if any provision were to be made for the sisters of Alagiriswamy, it should have been at that partition itself, and, therefore, the subsequent settlements purported to be made by Alagiriswamy in favour of his three married sisters who were practically in the position of strangers to the Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta, were totally void, and, hence, even the subsequent revocations were only superfluous. There is no dispute that a gift which is void ab initio by the law applicable to the same will not be liable to gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act. In view of the above, the conclusion of the Tribunal is correct and this petition is dismissed. The assessee will be entitled to his costs from the Commissioner. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 250.
|
