|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 201 Records
-
1980 (3) TMI 163
... ...
... ... ..... only admitting correct liability in respect of Rs. 40,000 which he was advised, was liable to capital gains tax. When that is so, we cannot shut him out of his remedy in law. The Madras High Court in Ramanlal Kamdar s case(1), was dealing with the matter where one of the partners of the firm had agreed to rectification proposing correction of the interest to be charged under s. 139. As pointed out by the High Court, the notice expressly referred to the tax effect which would result as consequence of the rectification. A partner of the assessee-firm had appeared before the ITO and stated that he had no objection. In the present case, the tax effect was not known and the admission was in respect of a matter which could not depend on admission, but depended upon certain statutory requirements. It is under these circumstances that we must hold that the appeal was rightly entertained by the first appellate authority. Under these circumstances, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 162
... ...
... ... ..... 0 per month, but the assessee had to spend a much larger amount on maintenance from year to year at the instance of the tenant. A protective bund was also put at the back to avoid erosion from Cooum river and to prevent encroachment. The assessee had also done considerable filling up of the land to level up the same before the property was let out again to Southern India Languages Book Trust. The expenses were incurred from time to time. It is stated that it was not possible to keep vouchers for all these expenditures. As against this, the only argument of the ITO was that there was no appreciable increase in the value of the property for wealth tax purposes from year to year. The AAC found that there was no material to rebut the assessee s claim that monies were spent for the purpose claimed. We agree with him and confirm the appellate order on this point. 12. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. The assessee s appeal is partly allowed. Relief due Rs. 20,000.
-
1980 (3) TMI 161
... ...
... ... ..... nsactions with Bank in assessee s books and cash credits which represent the surfacing of either sales or income. In short, there has been manipulation of account books. It was under these circumstances that the account books and the statements extracted therefrom were found to be unreliable and the addition of Rs. 1 lakh confirmed. It is not a case of estimate as sought to be suggested by the learned counsel. The learned counsel relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs. Gordhandas Moolchand(3), where the addition made by the ITO could not be referred to any particular assessment year and there was no evidence to show that the amount added was income. The facts as narrated earlier in the assessee s case are entirely different. It is a case where concealment has been clearly established and the penalty is warranted with or without the assistance Expln. to s. 271(1)(c). Under the circumstances, the order of the IAC is confirmed. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 140
... ...
... ... ..... peal, being rendered non-debatable as on 17th Feb., 1978, which was the date of the Tribunal s order. We have, therefore, to hold that on the facts no case has been established for coming to the conclusion that there was any mistake apparent from the records in the order of the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee sought to make a point that the Tribunal had mentioned that the Tribunal was following the view taken by the Allahabad High Court and the Gujarat High Court in a number of cases. While he does not state that this statement is incorrect, he submits that in the cases which went upto the Madras High Court and which have been reported in 119 ITR, the Tribunal had take a contrary view. The fact that the Tribunal had taken a contrary view in some decisions was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when it decided the appeal. In view of this, this fact cannot also result in a mistake apparent from the records. 8. The result is the application is dismissed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 138
... ...
... ... ..... will result in an invidious distinction between an Individual and an HUF which is not supported on reasonable interpretation of the Statue. Having regard to the fact that the section is mainly intended to encourage thrift, we find no merit in the Revenue s contention on the principle of the Supreme Court extracted earlier. 11. Before concluding we will refer to another aspect which is also not less important. Though the Agrl. ITO revised the assessment on the ground that the appellant s correct status was HUF yet even in the revised order dated 7th May, 79, he continued to specifically refer to the status as individual which was the same status as in the original order. Hence it is not correct to say that the appellant s status in the revised order is an HUF. Even on this ground, the Revenue must fail. 12. In the result we find considerable force in the appellant s contentions. The appeals are allowed. Institution fees shall be refunded in full for all the years under appeal.
-
1980 (3) TMI 136
... ...
... ... ..... Rajeshwari has been accepted. The facts stated therein remain uncontroverted. It appears clearly from this affidavit that 80 tolas of ornaments were given to the assessee she was not to be the owner of these ornaments. She was to hold these for the benefit of her sons. The fact that in the affidavit of Smt. Rajeshwari it was stated that these ornaments were to be given to the sons while in the statement of the assessee it was said that these were to be given to the wives of the sons at the time of marriage is not material. What the assessee said was a plausible elaboration of what Smt. Rajeshwari had said in her affidavit. It is quite clear to us the assessee was not the owner of the ornaments and that she was holding these for the benefit of her sons and these were to be given to their wives on the occasion of marriage. The inclusion of the value of the ornaments was not justified. We direct that the same be excluded from the assessments. 5. In the result the appeal succeed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 135
... ...
... ... ..... see how it could be said in such circumstances that the assessee had property or interest in property which could be considered in the wealth-tax assessments. We could have understood if the assessee had held the properties in question on lease for a specified period. In that case the interest of the assessee in the properties could have been valued and included in the assessments. But where a property is held by an assessee on monthly tenancy, it cannot be said that the assessee has any interest in the property in terms of s. 2(e) of the WT Act which could be valued and assessed to tax. In such a case all that happens is that the assessee has been permitted to occupy the property on monthly basis for a fixed monthly consideration. Beyond residing in the property on those conditions, the occupier has no interest of any kind in the property. The learned AAC rightly excluded the amount of Rs. 1,17,000. Hence we uphold his orders on this point. 6. The Departmental appeals fail.
-
1980 (3) TMI 134
... ...
... ... ..... io was disproportionate to the capital employed by the partner has no substance. It is for the partners to decide about the profit sharing ratio between them. Even if one partner does not contribute capital in accordance with the profit sharing ratio, it does not mean that the firm is not genuine. This matter is between the partners themselves. The only requirement, in such cases, is that there should be a genuine partnership deed executed by all the partners, and it should specify the profit sharing ratio. The other requirement is that the profits should be divided in accordance with the profit sharing ratio. Reference may be made to the decision in the case of K.D. Kamath(1). Looking to the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, the ld. AAC was wrong in confirming the order of the ITO. The firm is a genuine one, and it should be granted registration. The ITO is directed to grant registration to the firm in respect of the asst. yr. 1976-77. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 133
... ...
... ... ..... with the partnership deed. The profits were divided in accordance with the profit sharing ratio mentioned in the partnership deed. So, there is no justification for holding that the two minors were benamidars of other major partners. 9. The fresh contention of the Revenue that in the present case, there was transfer in favour of the minors of the property of the firm is not necessary for deciding the controversy. According to the assessee, there was no transfer. Even if there was transfer, there could be a gift to the extent of such transfer. In my opinion, the aforesaid contention is not to be decided for the purpose of deciding the point in controversy. 10. Looking to the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the finding of the AAC is not correct. The assessee-firm is a genuine firm. The application for registration was filed within time. Accordingly, the ITO is directed to grant registration to the firm for the year under consideration. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 132
... ...
... ... ..... who passed the order of penalty without having any jurisdiction to impose the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this view of the matter it is held that the penalty imposed by the IAC is liable to be cancelled. 6. So far as the plea of the learned Authorised Representative of the Department that the lis arises only when notice under s. 274(2) by the IAC is issued, is concerned and for that he cited two authorities reported is 4 STC page 140 and 12 STC 219 is concerned, we do not think there is any force in the submissions made. Both the authorities, cited on behalf of the assessee, are applicable on all fours to the facts and circumstances of the case before us. In this view of the matter the penalty imposed is cancelled and ITA No. 150(Jab)/1979 is allowed while ITA No. 303(Jab)/1979 against the order of the CIT (A) is dismissed as infructuous. In view of our decision on the preliminary legal issue we do not think the consideration of the matter on merit is necessary.
-
1980 (3) TMI 131
... ...
... ... ..... ur of the assessee. 6. Judicial propriety and discipline requires that the Tribunal should be consistent in its approach to problems when the Tribunal is faced with similar facts and their Lordships of the Madras High Court in the caste of CIT Central vs. L.C. Ramamurthi and Ors., reported in (1977) 110 ITR 453 (Mad), have held that no Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts. As such, on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee s case in appeal before us, we do follow our earlier order made in WTA Nos 351 to 357 (Gau) of 1975-76 in the case of Lachmi Devi Chowkhani and Ors. and do hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act, in lieu of the assessee lsquo s interest in the immovable property owned by the firm in which the assessee is a partner. 7. In the result, the appeal by the assessee succeeds and is allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 130
... ...
... ... ..... s a result, on this score the assessee succeeds. 10. As regards ground No. 2 as above, which relates to development rebate at Rs. 26,700, the assessee claimed that the AAC should have held the claim as allowable since the assessee has complied with all the conditions laid down under s. 33 and 34 of the Act and the claim of development rebate was allowable in view of the mandatory provisions of law. We have perused the impugned order of the AAC and find that this ground does not arise out of the impugned order, as such is rejected. On this score the assessee fails. 11. As regards ground No. 3 as above relating to the claim of the assessee under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961, suffice it to say that this aspect of the case is covered by the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT Gujarat vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd(2). As such on this score also the assessee fails. 12. In the result, the appeal by the assessee partly succeeds and is partly allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 129
... ...
... ... ..... ny has to be made under s. 40 (c) of the IT Act, 1961, and no case has been made out under the above provision of law for making the disallowance. The disallowance has been made on the simple score lsquo as before rsquo which as this Bench of the ITAT has been observing consistently, cannot be a ground for making of any disallowance. The disallowance has to be made and sustained on the facts of each case and on merits and under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961. The AAC has held that the Directors of the assessee company were owning personal cars, but still he has restricted the disallowance and has not based his order on this score on any material. The orders of the lower authorities, as such, merit to be reversed, which we do with the result that the addition made and sustained on this score for both the assessment years under appeal at Rs. 700 for each of the assessment years is directed to be deleted. 8. In the result, the appeals by the assessee succeed and are allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 128
... ...
... ... ..... pendent one the disallowances have to be made and sustained on merits and on facts of each year and like last year is no basis for making and sustaining of any disallowance as such we delete the disallowances on all the scores, made and sustained by the lower authorities since we are of the view and accordingly do hold that these have been made on no basis. 11. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Pioneer Spring and Steel Concern Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT, West Bengal, Calcutta (1), have held that the ITO has to apply his mind properly. It is not open to him to follow an earlier order in respect of an earlier assessment year automatically and without application of an independent mind. The earlier order might have some bearing or relevance but that does not conclude the matter. Merely because of a decision in respect of the earlier year the ITO should not automatically follow the same . 12. In the result, both the appeals by the assessee succeed and are allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 127
... ...
... ... ..... of the debt which we have since held as bad and which we have held as meriting to be allowed as deduction under s. 36 of the Act in accordance with law and for the purposes we do set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the case to the file of the ITO, the ITO shall allow deduction as stands provided under s. 36(2)(iv) r/w s. 155(6) of the Act. The ITO, shall give a finding prior to allowing deduction in respect of the debt as to the point of time when this has become bad in his opinion, and for the purposes the above provision of law should be invoked. 20. In the result of our having held that the debt has become bad and merits to be allowed as deduction under s. 36(2) r/w s. 155(6) of the Act, the consequential relief in terms of interest and disallowances of the same which flows out of the above findings as a natural corollary thereto, shall also be allowed to the assessee. 21. In the result, the appeal by the assessee shall be taken to have been allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 126
... ...
... ... ..... ut-goings Rs. 18,150 . Rs. 48,450 Less Rebate-allowance in lieu of the property being co-owned by three co-owners . 10 per cent Rs. 7,260 . Rs. 41,190 rounded off to Rs. 41,200 Applying a multiple of 12.5, the value of the subject-matter for the purposes of WT Act, 1957 works out to Rs. 5,15,000. The shares of each of the co-owners, i.e., each of the assessee works out to Rs. 1,71,667. 14. In the result, the value of the subject-matter in the hands of the assessee for each of the three assessment years shall be taken at Rs. 1,71,667 and exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act, 1957 for the asst. yr. 1971-72 in the case of each of the assessee shall be in the ratio, which the figure Rs. 10,800 bears to the figure Rs. 72,600. Exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act for the remaining assessment years being allowable at the flat rate of Rs. 1,00,000 for each of the year, these shall be allowed accordingly. 15. In the result, all the appeals partly succeed and are partly allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 125
... ...
... ... ..... efore the AAC. The ld. Departmental Representative has supported the orders of the lower authorities. 19. We having considered the facts of the case as also the submissions-contentions of the parties feel inclined to accept the assessee s case that no addition on this score was called for since the ITO has not brought out any material or facts justifying the disallowance valuation of 1000 Kgs. of tea. The contention of the assessee that tea was consumed by the staff and the labourers employed by the assessee has not been controverted, simply the Revenue have stated that the staff and the labourers could not have consumed so much tea. The disallowance having not been based on any fact or material but having been based on surmises and conjectures is directed to be deleted, with the result the income of the assessee at Rs. 6,000 on that score is directed to be deleted. On this score the assessee succeeds. 20. As a result of our above discussion, the appeal stands partly allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 124
... ...
... ... ..... essment in the case of the assessee and the said material having not been put to the assessee, i.e. the assessee having not been given an opportunity of being heard in respect of this material, the assessment stands vitiated. 11. The infirmity attached by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in respect of this material and within the meaning of sub-s. (3) of s. 142 of the Act, in our view, being a curable one, we do set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the case to the file of the ITO with the direction that the assessment in the case of the assessee shall be framed in accordance with law and after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Since we have set aside the assessment and the orders of the lower authorities on the above score, we do not feel inclined to discuss the merits of the case. 13. In the results, the appeal by the assessee, for statistical purposes, shall be treated to have been allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 123
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee was entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,49,775 being the amount of sales-tax which it was liable under the law to pay during the relevant accounting year. That liability did not cease to be a liability because the assessee had taken proceedings before higher authorities for getting it reduced or wiped out as long as the contention of the assessee did not prevail. Further, the fact that the assessee had failed to debit the liability in the books of accounts did not debar it from claiming the sum as a deduction either under s. 18(1) or under s. 10(2)(xv). Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in his books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter . 24. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal by the assessee shall be taken to have been partly allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 122
... ...
... ... ..... dgment of the Lordships of the Allahabad High Court Raja Hari Chand Raj Singh vs. CIT(2). The Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that the order of the AAC being in accordance with law called for no interference. 3. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the order of AAC has to be set aside and matter restored to his file for the simple reason that he did not look in to the case law which was placed before him particularly the judgement of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1972 UPTC at page 670, which is the law applicable to both the parties because the assessee hails from U.P. We, therefore, set aside the order of the AAC and restore the cases to his file with the direction that he should decide the issue afresh after taking into consideration a judgment of their Lordships of Allahabad High Court as also the other two judgements cited above. 4. The appeals shall be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
........
|
