|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 92 Records
-
1977 (2) TMI 67 - ITAT PATNA-A
... ...
... ... ..... applied by the authorities below i.e., 10 per cent is quite reasonable in this line of business. The assessee attributes the low margin of profit to (i) its lack of experience in the work at Assam Site (ii) the rise in the prices of building materials and labour charges etc., and (iii) a serious mistake is committed by it in calculating the rates at the time of submitting the tenders. Since the assessee did not produce any evidence before the authorities below to substantiate its version, we are unable to grant any relief to the assessee on the grounds urged by it. We, therefore, uphold the estimate of the Income-tax Officer. 16. During the course of the argument, the Representative of the assessee did not press his ground of appeal relating to the levy of interest under s. 271. We therefore, uphold the impugned order on this point. 17. For the reasons given by us in pages 9 to 14 above, we cancel the assessment order as time-barred. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 66 - ITAT PATNA-A
... ...
... ... ..... in the argument of the Department that there cannot be any valid partnership between an individual and a trustee of a Trust. There is no legal bar for such a partnership. A Trust can always enter into a partnership in a representative capacity. A firm is valid although a partner may divide his share of profit with his sub-partners or with members of another firm. This has been so held in 53 ITR page 204 and 78 ITR page 18 by the Supreme Court. We are also informed that the Department has allowed registration to this sub-partnership in the later year. Considering this, we are of the view that the income of Smt. Sulochana Devi Nathani would be governed by the sub-partnership which as held by us came into existence at the end of November 1971. In view of this, the action of the AAC in excluding that part of income which accrued after the coming into existence of the sub-partnership is upheld. 9. The appeals by the Department as well as by the assessee are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 65 - ITAT PATNA-A
... ...
... ... ..... h December, 1971 and Smt. Sulochana Devi Nathani and the trustees had signed this application on the last of the accounting period which was also the last date for filing of registration application. If the partnership deed could be signed, the registration application could also have been signed at that very time and sent to the Income-tax Officer. This was, however, not done. There was no reason for not doing so. The persons who signed the partnership deed were Smt. Sulochana Devi Nathani for herself and Sri Arjun Agarwalla on behalf of the Trust. These very persons could have been easily signed the registration application on that very day. In view of this, the plea of the assessee that the delay was due to the illness sister of Smt. Sulochana Devi Nathani cannot be accepted as a reasonable cause. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rightly refused the registration of the firm for the assessment year 1972-73. 7. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 58 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... ar 1973-74 after the aforesaid scheme had ceased to operate and so the case for that year is not covered by this scheme. This argument is of no avail to the Department. In fact, it goes against the Department inasmuch as the Commissioner of Income-tax did not make any distinction and cancelled the assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 along with the assessments for the other years by a consolidated order. This fact clearly shows that the Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 in a mechanical manner without scrutinising the details in respect of the same. In any case, the reasons given by me in paras No. 13 and 14 equally apply to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment year 1973-74 and so I do not find any justification for taking a different view for this year. 17. In view of the above discussion, the impugned consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income-tax is cancelled and the appeals are allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 56 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... tnight preceding Pongal. After the 14th Jan., there is no such case of excess. There is, in any event, no material to show that the assessee had left out to account any transaction. In these circumstances, the plea that due to a very quick turnover in that fortnight, purchases were recorded immediately on the sale being made as the weavers were bringing the cloth for ready sale is not improbable. The rate of gross profit shown this year compares favourably with those in the period 1969-70 to 1972-73. The AAC has also accepted that there was a slump in trade conditions as compared to the immediately preceding year. Looking to all these facts and the fact that the purchases were supported by lsquo chittai rsquo we consider that the nominal fall in gross profit by 1.5 per cent in the absence of any other specific omissions being detected, could not warrant an addition. We, therefore, delete the addition sustained of Rs. 6,000 and would allow the appeal. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 54 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... ailed to note the information supplied to him. The Departmental Representative on the other hand relied on the orders below. 20. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that on the basis of the information supplied by the assessee before the AAC and the fact that there was no disallowance in the year 31st March, 1964 we find no reason for disallowing the entire interest. From the information supplied and from also the disallowance made in the past, we hold that a disallowance on an estimated basis can be made on the facts and circumstances of this case. Even though there was no disallowance in 31st March, 1964 taking note of the disallowance between 31st March, 1962 and 31st March, 1963 we hold that it would be reasonable to estimate the disallowable interest at 50 per cent of the total in each of the years under consideration. We would accordingly direct the allowance of the claim. 21. In the result the appeals for 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1968-69 are partly allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 52 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income. We are, unable to uphold the above finding of the Income-tax authorities that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income. Shri Pattabiraman urged that the assessee is liable to be penalised under the explanation to s. 271(1)(c). As pointed out earlier, the assessee has maintained accounts to show the cost of construction. The department has not to challenged the correctness of the accounts. No specific item of omission or inflation or understatement in the statement has been pointed out. In these circumstances we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee has discharged the burden of proof cast under explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of showing that he is not guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part in his failure to return the correct income. Thus there is no justification for the levy of penalty either under s. 271(1)(c) or under the Explanation thereto. We cancel the penalty. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 51 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... e share of the profit received by any one of the partners. But, we do not think that that fact alone would support the case of the Revenue without anything more to show a concerted attempt on the part of the partners to reduce the income of the firm and obtain it back from the employee. On the other hand, this fact supports the case of the assessee for the partners, other than the one related to the employee, could not be expected to agree for payment of such remuneration resulting in reduction of the share of their profits unless the employee concerned was rendering services commensurate with the payment made to him. In the circumstances of the case, it must be held that the Revenue has not made out any case of extra commercial consideration in the payment of remuneration to the employee and we see no reason for restoring the disallowance made by the ITO. We have, therefore, no hesitation in confirming the common order of the AAC. 6. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 46 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... e also confirms this position. 6. The AAC felt that the article is not lsquo Iron and Steel rsquo because it contains carbon, manganese and chromium and because it has undergone some treatment. Iron and steel contains, besides iron percentages of carbon, silicon, manganes, sulphur, phosperous etc. For alloy steels, metal (0.40) Chromium (0.30) molybendum (0.15) and Varadium (0.15) are present. The AO has no precise details to indicate that the disputed categories contain significant proportions of other metals to disentitle its treatment as lsquo iron and steel rsquo . The processes stated are only utilised in putting iron and steel in different shapes and sizes. Resultantly we do not find any material to disturb the treatment of the disputed goods as lsquo iron and steel rsquo . This diputed turnover consequently relates to lsquo declared goods rsquo . They will be treated as liable to be assessed at 3 per cent instead of 10 per cent. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 45 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ng the purchase turnover of the assessee for the purpose of determining the turnover under s. 7-A. 7. If the purchase turnover of Rs. 39,721.50 is excluded from the total turnover, the assessee rsquo s assessable turnover is only Rs. 46.931. Therefore, under the proviso to s. 7-A (1), the assessee is not liable to pay purchase tax. Hence we find on point (i) and (ii) for consideration that the enhancement of the purchase turnover of Rs. 14,068 is correct and the assessee is not liable to be levied with purchase tax under s. 7-A of the Act. Consequently, there is no necessity for the assessee to claim the benefit under s. 7 of the Act, since this turnover is determined below Rs. 50,000. The assessing officer is at liberty to assess the dealer under s. 3(2) of the Act on the single point sale turnover of bullion. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the levy of purchase-tax under s. 7-A and s. 7 assessment is cancelled.
-
1977 (2) TMI 42 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... further explained that the old stocks are mixed with new stocks and they are dispose do. That is how there is variation in the value of the closing stock. He has further pointed out that in the preceding year the addition was made only to the tune of Rs. 3,000 to 4,000 and in this year only the addition has come to Rs. 17,000. He has given us a chart showing gross profit disclosed by the assessee for four years and from that he pointed that there is no reason why the addition should be made for the year under appeal. The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below. 3. After having heard both the sides and considered facts of the case we feel that the addition made is on the high side. Taking a broad view of the matter and all probabilities of the case we feel an addition of Rs. 4,000 is sufficient in regard to the under valuation of the closing stock. The balance of Rs. 13,000 is therefore deleted. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1977 (2) TMI 41 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... e deed of transfer and, therefore, the question of liability to capital gains tax on the transferor in terms of s.52 does not arise. Even if it does, there is no question of tax evasion which calls for invoking the provisions of s.269C of the Act. It cannot be said that the consideration for transfer agreed to between the parties has been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with the object of evading the liability to capital the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the legal position emerging from a close reading of the provisions of s.269C, I have no doubt in my mind that the said provisions do not apply to cases of bonafide transfers as in this case where the full consideration received has been truly stated in the instrument of transfer not-with-standing that such consideration is far below the fair market value. I accordingly agree with my learned brother, the Judicial Member, in his conclusion and set aside the order of the Competent Authority.
-
1977 (2) TMI 40 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... led to any benefit because various schedules to the IT Act do not treat the printing business as an industrial company. The reason also is erroneous as the schedules giving the lists of articles are the Fifth Schedule, Seventh Schedule and Nineth Schedule which relate to development rebate, deduction for expenditure on prospecting and a special allowance of depreciation in respect of certain industries. Since the claim of the assessee does not fall under any of these provisions, we fail to see what relevance these schedules of the Act could have for the purpose of considering the claim of the assessee. 10. We, therefore, find that the assessee company is an industrial company within the meaning of the definitions given in the respective Finance Acts and is entitled to the concessional rate of tax. We accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct the ITO to revise the assessments and grant the relief claimed by the assessee. 11. The appeals are allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 39 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... at this amount was taxable. The litigation is still going on. There was no cessation of liability in the sense that Mandi Samiti having given up its claim nor the matter has been finally decided against the assessee and strangely the amount was never allowed as a deduction in the past so that the provisions of s. 41(1) could be applied. In fact this amount could not be allowed as a deduction because the assessee never claimed it as deduction, it being a collection made by it. The treatment in the accounts also show that the assessee is treating it as a liability. It is therefore clear that on facts the Department has failed to prove that the amount was allowed as a deduction in the past and that the liability to pay the amount to the Mandi Samiti had ceased. This amount cannot be brought to tax as income. This amount is therefore to be deleted. We direct accordingly. 14. In the result ITA. No. 4431 of 1974-75 is allowed in part whereas I.T.A. No. 5259 of 1974-75 is dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 38 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... return declaring a loss of Rs.47,480 and even after the disallowance made by the Income Tax Officer the resultant figure is only a net loss Rs. 12,092. Having regard to the fact that the firm had not made a positive income and that there are five partners in the firm it is highly unlikely that the assessee would have made inflated claim of bad debts during the previous year. There being no motive on the part of the assessee to make false or unsubstantiated claims in regard to bad debts and having also due consideration to the fact that the assessee had furnished all relevant details before the Income Tax Officer did not have any material to contradict the submissions made by the assessee or to disbelieve them, we have come to the conclusion that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be upheld. We, therefore sustain the disallowance only to the extent of Rs.10,560 as done by the Appellate Assistant Commr. 7. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 37 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... documents it is abundantly clear that the assessee had to suspend its business on account of the order of the District Magistrate but the business did not discontinue, because the assessee was agitating the matter before the authorities below. Ultimately, the assessee succeeded in having the old licence renewed which by itself would show that the business which ceased to be active became active because of the renewal of the old licence. This makes it clear that during the period when the licence remained suspended the business was not discontinued but remained dormant and, therefore, the expenses incurred during the period of the dormancy of the business are expenses incidental to business. We therefore, hold on facts that the assessee was entitled to its claim in all the three years. As we have decided the issue on facts, we need not go into the case laws relied upon by both the sides because the law follows the facts and not vice versa. 6. All the three appeals are allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 36 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... w that the audit was delayed by the assessee, we have to hold that the delay was caused by the auditors themselves. We further hold that this was a plausible reason for the assessee company rsquo s failure to file the return of income within proper time. The learned Departmental Representative has referred to Mysore High Court decision in 97 ITR 168 but we find that the decision was given on the facts of that case which have not been stated in the judgement and, therefore, it cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. We do not also think that the Madras High Court decision 10 103 ITR 634, relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, can be of much assistance in view of what we have said above with regard to labour trouble. Our conclusion is that the assessee company was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the return of income within statutory period and as such penalty was not leviable. Hence we cancel the penalty. 7. In the result the appeal succeeds.
-
1977 (2) TMI 35 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... eryone visiting the town on payment of maintenance charges. There was no such stipulation in the deed itself nor was there any other evidence on record to support this views. This trust was approved by the CIT vide his R. No. 15(SHN)/73-74/12434 dt. Kanpur the 27th Nov., 1973. We further find that as per the figure supplied by the learned counsel for the assessee the number of families of the donors, who stayed in the Dharamshala ranged between 20 to 25 per cent of the total number of yatris, who stayed in the Dharamshala over the whole year. In the matter of the allotment of the Sanatorium blocks also, the benefit derived by the families of the donors was very limited. On these facts, we consider that the trust under consideration could not be considered to be a private religious trust and that it came within the purview of s. 11 of the IT Act. We accordingly see no reason to interfere with the order of the AAC and uphold the same. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dealer. 3. It is disclosed that declaration had been obtained by the dealer and they were produced before the appellate authority but he did not accept the same. It is admitted that the notice for the last date of hearing i.e. 18th June, 1973 was received by the major son of the partner Shri Rajinder Sarup of the firm but it is stated that the said notice could not be delivered by the son to the father. It is stated that if he had received the notice, he would not have failed to appear before the assessing authority when he had been appearing on other dated fixed by the assessing authority. 4. In the circumstances stated above, I think dealer should be allowed one more opportunity to place his case before the assessing authority. 5. I, therefore, allow the appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases to the assessing authority of passing fresh assessment order after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard. 6. Announced in open court before the parties.
-
1977 (2) TMI 33 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ssed. Second revision applications were, however, allowed by Shri K.C. Johorey vide order mentioned above. He set said the assessment orders and remanded the cases to the Assessing Authority for framing fresh assessment after providing the dealer reasonable opportunity for producing his books of accounts. 3. The learned Financial Commissioner found as a fact that it was significant to note that on the last date i.e. 23rd Aug, 1972 the dealer s application seeking adjournment was rejected by the assessing authority but it was strange that no reasons for rejection were at all mentioned. The Financial Commissioner held that the action of the assessing authority rejecting the adjournment application was arbitrary. The question whether sufficient opportunity to plead his case was allowed to the dealer or not is, to my mind, a question of fact. No question of law is involved. I, therefore, refuse to draw up the statement of case and refer the question of law to Hon ble High Court.
|
