|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 92 Records
-
1977 (2) TMI 32 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... l No. 2056/STT This appeal is in respect of the year 1969-70. The estimate of sale was made at the rate of Rs. 130 per day. The books of account could not be relied upon because sale vouches were not issued and the purchase vouchers were also not available. The sales showed a decline which was not satisfactorily explained. In the above circumstances, the authorities below were justified in rejecting the returned version and framing the assessment on the basis of best judgment. The estimate of sale at the rate of Rs. 130 per day cannot be said to be excessive taking into consideration the estimate made in the previous year. The impugned order does not call for any interference. 9. Appeal No. 2057/STT Is in respect of the year 1970-71. The assessing authority had estimated the sale at Rs. 12,000 per quarter which will come to about Rs. 133 per day. For the reason already stated, this estimate does not appear to be excessive. 10. All these five appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 31 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... e ground that they were not properly verifiable. Another sum of Rs. 3,000 has been disallowed out of office car expenses for private use of car. After hearing both the parties and considering the defect pointed out by the Income-tax Officer, we hold that these disallowances are quite in order. Similarly, we uphold the disallowance of Rs. 4,500 stated to be remuneration paid to a representative the nature of whose services could not be proved by the assessee to be in connection with the assessee s business. We also uphold the disallowance of presentation expenses of Rs. 856. But we do not see any justification for the disallowance of Rs. 5,000 from consumable stores, Rs. 10,000 from wages and Rs. 3,793 from misc. expenses. Considering the nature and extent of the assessee s business and the total expenses under these heads, these petty disallowances were uncalled for. We delete these three disallowances amounting to Rs. 18,793. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 30 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
... ...
... ... ..... at 25 per cent was accepted by the AAC. In theses circumstances and in the absence of any cogent reasons, we do not find any justification for not accepting the assessee s turnover for the assessment years 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74. We direct the ITO to do so. Moreover, further in regard to the reasonable rate of net profit for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74, we direct the ITO to estimate net profit at the rate of 15 per cent, an increase by 21/2 per cent and is quite in consonance with the stand taken by the authorities below for all other assessment years except for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 when such increase was 5 per cent. Thus, we direct the ITO to accept the assessee s income as returned for the asst. yr. 1970-71 and to estimate business profits for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 at the rate of 15 per cent on the turnover disclosed by the assessee. Assessment orders for these years must be modified accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeals the partly allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 29 - ITAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ensure that the machinery was not kept idle, to use the same may be for the major part for execution of job work of the others. It does not appear, and that there is nothing on the record to show that this averment about the circumstances leading to the use of the machinery for job work of others in the years in question should not be believed. As already stated above, as per statement filed by Shri Khetani after the said policy was changed the use of the machinery for job work of others has dwindled continuously from 1970-71 right up to 1975-76. From this it would be reasonable to hold that there was a reasonable excuse within the meaning of s. 10(d) for the use in question of the machinery. 9. Considering all the circumstances, the levy of the penalty cannot be supported. The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The orders of the lower authorities levying penalty are hereby set aside. Excess amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant in accordance with law.
-
1977 (2) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the present appellant to pay purchase tax on the purchases was also involved. Even if this was, so the said position was cleared by 3rd October., 1972. The circumstances as relevant for remission would be available only for the year 1972-73. In view of all the above considerations only a slight reduction in the quantum of the penalty levied would be called for, for the year 1971 to 1972. The adequate penalty for the year 1st July, 1971 to 30th June, 1972 would be Rs. 20,000. 15. As regards the last period, namely, 1972-73, as a result of the discussion above stated, no ground have been made out for a reduction of the quantum of the penalty. 16. Second Appeal Nos. 1467 and 1889 of 1974 succeed in part. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner are modified accordingly. The quantum of the penalty for the two periods would be as under (1) 1st July, 1970 to 30th June, 1971 Rs. 20,000. (2) 1st July, 1971 to 30th June, 1972 Rs. 20,000. Second Appeal No. 48 of 1976 is dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 27 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ncluding 1/4th which was restricted by the AAC to 1/3rd. The assessee urged that it itself added 1/4th for personal use and, therefore, the further disallowance was not justified. Accordingly, the assessee urged that its claim should be allowed and accordingly the disallowance of depreciation should be restricted. 9. The Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below and urged that the disallowance should be confirmed. 10. The assessee has admitted the correct position that the car was used by the partners for personal use and accordingly he only claimed 3/4th of the total expenditure as business expenditure. The assessee one of the partners was also owning a car and under the circumstances, further disallowance is not justified. The ITO should accept claim of the assessee and restrict the disallowance of depreciation in the same proportion. The ITO is directed to modify the assessments of the assessee and its partners. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 26 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... esired by the ITO because all the partners were residing in Calcutta and they were assessed there. Under the circumstances, it is clear that so far as the filing of details as desired by the ITO are concerned in terms of notice under s. 142(1) dt. 29th July, 1974, the assessee has duly complied with and has filed its reply through its letter dt. 18th Sept., 1974. However, the assessee could not file the details of the particulars of its partners because the assessee could not get the particulars as the partners were residing in Calcutta and they were also assessed there. Under the circumstances, the assessee for furnishing the particulars of the partners was prevented from reasonable cause and, therefore, the ITO was not justified to reject the application of the assessee under s. 146 of the Act. The application of the assessee under s. 146 is accepted and the ITO is directed to re-open the assessment of the assessee according to law. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Cycles - Item 35 CET - Connotation of - Classification of goods for purposes of duty - Whether High Court can interfere
-
1977 (2) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains Tax, High Court, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ch would give rise to chargeable capital gains--a question which has been specifically raised before us in the instant case. The decision and all the observations made in Daulatran Nayar s case 1976 105 ITR 843 (Bom) cannot, therefore, be taken to have decided the issue that has arisen in the instant case before us, especially when on that precise issue the court proceeded on an assumption or concession made at the Bar. That decision, therefore, cannot avail the revenue. For the reasons indicated above, we are inclined to accept the view of the Madras High Court in Rathnam Nadar s case 1969 71 ITR 433 (Mad) and the view of the Kerala High Court in the Full Bench decision in E.C. Jacob s case 1973 89 ITR 88 (Ker) FB . Having regard to the above discussion, the question referred to us will have to be answered in favour of the assessee. Question is accordingly answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Department will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1977 (2) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Original Assessment, Wealth Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... Wealth-tax Act. We may close by noticing how the assessee s objection was dealt with by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That officer observed In the grounds of appeal it has also been stated that the Wealth-tax Officer ought to have taken the correct value of shares calculated on the basis of rules made thereunder. At the time of hearing the authorised representative did not press this ground when it was pointed out to him that it was not open to the Wealth-tax Officer to reduce the wealth in the reopened assessment when the appellant had failed to pursue his remedies against the original assessment according to law. So this ground also fails. We answer the question referred in the negative, that is in favour of the department and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment, under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court will be communicated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1977 (2) TMI 22 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... cer, District 1(4), Ludhiana, in which the value of 1/3rd share of the property belonging to Shri Ranjit Kumar, co-sharer, was determined at Rs. 73,333. We may also mention that this value was arrived at on the basis of the report made by the valuation officer appointed under section 12A of the Act. The learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that the order dated January 7, 1975, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ludhiana, was not based on a full-fledged enquiry. We do not agree with this submission because the order on the face of it shows that it had been passed under section 16(3) of the Act which contemplates an enquiry in which evidence can be led and the assessee can also be heard. So long as this order is not challenged in appeal or revision, it is not open to the department to adopt a different yardstick in the case of the present assessee. For the reasons mentioned above, we answer the questions referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
1977 (2) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessee Carrying On Business, Income From Business ... ... ... ... ..... 3,32,000 (Rs. 3,40,000) are receipts of a casual and non-recurring nature not arising from business or the exercise of a profession or occupation within the meaning of section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in finding that the explanation of the assessee about the nature and source of the receipt of Rs. 3,32,000 from America and credited in the account of the India Gospel Mission is satisfactory and, therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,40,000 as income from other sources is not justified ? In the light of our judgment in I.T.R. No. 22 of 1975, we answer the three questions in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs in any of these cases. A copy of the judgment in all these cases, under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court, will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1977 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rly of the opinion that in the light of the judgment of this court and the Supreme Court referred to above as well as the language of Explanation (b) to section 2(1) of the Act, the unmarried Christian daughter of the assessee cannot be considered to be a Hindu for the purpose of application of the statutory provisions. As a matter of fact, it was not the case of the assessee himself at any stage that the daughter was brought up as a Hindu. On the other hand, he asserted again and again that the daughter is a Christian. If the daughter is a Christian, then by virtue of section 2(1)(c) of the Act, which we have extracted, the Act itself will have no application to her as being outside the pale of the Hindu fold for whom alone the Act was intended. Hence, we are clearly of the opinion that the conclusion of the Tribunal is erroneous in law and, therefore, we answer the question referred to this court in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (2) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Delay In Submission, Provisional Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... re the Tribunal to show that the conditions of service of the assessee imposed any such obligation on the assessee. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in its conclusion that under section 16(v) of the Act, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 8,787. In this connection, our attention was drawn to two decisions, viz., (1) A. K. Venkiteswaran v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1973 92 ITR 233 (Ker), a decision of the Kerala High Court and (2) Commissioner of Income-tax v. D. R. Phatak 1975 99 ITR 14 (Bom). Though the former decision dealt with section 16(v) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, and the latter decision dealt with section 10(14) of the Act, still neither of the decisions considered the case with reference to the particular aspect which we have to consider in the present case. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to this court in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (2) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Delay In Submission, Provisional Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... t is included in the expression advance tax occurring in section 139(1)(iii) is a debatable one and, therefore, the deduction of the tax paid pursuant to the provisional order of assessment cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the record for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Act. We are of the opinion that there is no substance whatsoever in this contention, because, having regard to the statutory language extracted above as contained in section 139(1)(iii), the expression advance tax can only mean one thing, viz., the advance tax paid pursuant to the requirement of the statute and cannot mean any other amount and, therefore, there is no question of the point being debatable so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Act. The result is that we answer both the questions referred to this court in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (2) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in this case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code are not legal and proper, cannot be countenanced. Further, I find that no provision of the Income-tax Act has been bypassed. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution in this case is premature also falls to the ground in the light of the discussions made by me above. From the foregoing discussion, I hold that Crl. R. C. No. 44 of 1974 is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. The case being an old one instituted as early as in 1973, the Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible. Cr. M. P. No. 4813 of 1976 This application is filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 4445 of 1973 on the same ground that was raised in the main revision petition. For the reasons given by me in the revision petition, this petition cannot be sustained and as such it is also dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
False Statement, Levy Of Penalty, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... xplanation has not taken a view different from the one which we have indicated as flowing from the decisions we have discussed. In view of the conclusion of ours, it is unnecessary to consider whether the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 1964, is attracted or not to the facts of this case. Consequently, we answer the question referred to this court in the negative and against the assessee. Since the Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to penalty at all, it did not go into the quantum of the penalty and in view of our present decision the Tribunal will have now to go into the quantum of penalty. There will be no order as to costs. The assessee was not represented before us and, therefore, we requested Mr. S. V. Subramaniam, Advocate, to assist us as amicus curiae and he has drawn our attention to all the relevant decisions bearing on the question in issue and we record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by hi.
-
1977 (2) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Companies Profits Surtax, Computation Of Capital, Contingency Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... mmissioner of Income-tax v. Caltex Oil Refining (I) Ltd. 1976 102 ITR 260 (Bom) and the safe deposit vault has been similarly taken, as coming within the scope of the word plant in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Union Bank of India Ltd. 1976 102 ITR 270 (Bom). All these decisions would go to show clearly that the expression plant has to be construed in the context of particular kind of trade or manufacture carried on by the assessee and if in the context it could be taken as plant as understood in the popular sense it would be eligible for the allowance of depreciation and development rebate. It follows from the above that, in the present case the Tribunal acted rightly in holding the special reinforced concrete foundation as plant within the scope of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions referred to us in these two references are answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee one set--Rs. 500.
-
1977 (2) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Provident Fund ... ... ... ... ..... rovisions of Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be read and construed harmoniously. When so read and construed, it must necessarily lead to an irresistible conclusion that the commission cannot be included within the meaning of the word salary for the purposes aforesaid. As already stated, the company pays basic monthly salary to its employees and also contributes to the said fund on the basis of the said basic monthly salary and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and for the reasons already stated, it must be held that the company s proportionate contribution pertaining to commission is not an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(iv) of the Act and that its fund does not satisfy the conditions of rule 4(c) of Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Act. In the premises, we answer both the questions in the negative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SANKAR PRASAD MITRA C.J.-I agree.
-
1977 (2) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e to be disposed of in the judgment mentioned above. This court held that on the basis of certain investigations conducted by the income-tax department in respect of hundi transactions, it came to light that the creditors who had advanced monies on hundis to various businessmen were merely name-lenders who had no means for making the advances and the amounts shown were the assessee s own monies brought into the account in the banker s names. In pursuance of this information the petitioner s assessments for 1960-61 and 1961-62 were sought to be reopened under section 147 and notices, therefore, were issued under section 148. In view of this it was held that the notices were proper and valid. The circumstances for the two assessment years in question cannot be said to be materially different. For the reasons mentioned above we answer the question that is referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
|
